The DA’s bitter internal row has escalated, with axed former environment minister Dion George taking the unprecedented step of reporting party leader John Steenhuisen to the public protector.
In a lengthy and frequently emotional submission, George alleges that Steenhuisen had him axed from the cabinet under false pretences in favour of Willie Aucamp, whose family George alleges benefits from the highly lucrative trade in lion hunting.
The bombshell 84-page affidavit to public protector Nompilo Gcaleka, complete with pictures of Aucamp family members with lion cubs, follows weeks of acrimony between the two senior party members who were once close friends.
Leaked claims about Steenhuisen’s alleged misuse of a party credit card and unverified allegations about George sexually harassing and mistreating members of his ministerial staff have destroyed the veneer of orderliness, discipline and decorum that the DA tries to maintain as it sells itself as an alternative to the notoriously fractious ANC.
George’s complaint comes just over a week after Aucamp himself approached the public protector. Rapport reported two weeks ago that Aucamp accused George of abusing state resources and fabricating a whistleblower report to launch a departmental investigation into him.
The tit-for-tat complaints come ahead of a crucial DA elective leadership congress in April when Steenhuisen hopes to be elected for a third term. It is not clear whether George, who is the DA’s federal finance chair, will seek re-election to this post.
Minister Steenhuisen is abusing his power as DA leader and as GNU negotiator to advance his own political agenda, which serves his own interests and not those of the DA
— Dion George
In the affidavit, George alleges that Steenhuisen:
- unlawfully interfered in the mandate of his department and in his role as minister by instructing him to meet captive-lion breeders, and by holding his own meetings with them;
- suggested to him that “captive wildlife” should be the responsibility of the department of agriculture, of which Steenhuisen is minister;
- recommended Aucamp for appointment as minister of the department of forestry, fisheries & the environment because of links Aucamp has to the captive breeding and wildlife ranching industry; and
- removed him as a minister who was acting independently and impartially to replace him with someone who suited his personal political objectives.
George also wants the public protector to investigate Aucamp for:
- alleged failure to disclose his personal commercial interests and conflicts of interest;
- the withdrawal of a South African proposal to tighten rules on abalone (perlemoen) trade at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) conference late last year; and
- failure to renew the mandate of a ministerial task team that was appointed by former environment minister Barbara Creecy to implement the phase-out of the captive lion breeding industry.
Aucamp has denied any links to canned lion hunting, but the details and internal party communications included in the complaint to Gcaleka could do fresh harm to the DA’s image.
According to George, Steenhuisen conflated his roles as DA leader, minister of agriculture and party negotiator for cabinet posts in the government of national unity.
“Minister Steenhuisen is abusing his power as DA leader and as GNU negotiator to advance his own political agenda, which serves his own interests and not those of the DA, [or] more importantly, the people of South Africa as a whole,” George says in his affidavit.
“This abuse of power includes an encroachment into other ministerial departments to dilute their independence and objectivity and to advance singular commercial interests [that] carry significant risk to South Africa’s natural heritage and to our reputation as a country.
“Minister Steenhuisen’s direct attack on the independence of ministerial roles in stand-alone departments is tantamount to cadre deployment. It is further a concerted effort to purge the DA of Steenhuisen objectors, while undermining the constitution.”
According to George, Steenhuisen began to meddle in the DFFE shortly after the department last October confirmed South Africa’s commitment to the CITES bans on commercial trade in rhino horn and ivory.
He said that he had in the past held a meeting with those who were breeding lions in captivity to make clear that the practice would be phased out.
But Steenhuisen had “demanded” that he co-operate with the captive breeders. The DA leader’s insistence that he hold further meetings with the breeders was “highly inappropriate”.
“To meet alone with and to co-operate alone with the captive breeders would have isolated large swathes of affected parties, who would have found the meeting inappropriate and a conflict.”
Asked for comment, Steenhuisen described George’s allegations as “flimsy fabrications, a gross misunderstanding of mandates and yet another attempt to seek revenge for his removal from executive office”.
Steenhuisen denied interfering with George’s duties, saying he had simply passed on a request from a member of the Wildlife Ranching Association of South Africa for a meeting to discuss the legal battles between it and the department over hunting quotas for certain protected species.
“It was expressed to me that they were looking for an amicable way to deal with the impasse that would avoid lengthy delays and legal costs.”
He said wildlife ranching had in 1996 been declared an agricultural activity in terms of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, so the issue fell “directly under my departmental mandate and legislative responsibility”.
Steenhuisen said it was George who was exceeding his mandate by making decisions relating to wildlife ranching and the production of agricultural products without consultation with the ministry of agriculture. “This I found uncollegial and unhelpful given the fact that we were colleagues from the same political party.”
Steenhuisen said he knew of no links between Aucamp and captive lion breeding.
It would be as ridiculous as saying that a farmer couldn’t be agriculture minister, a doctor couldn’t be health minister or a lawyer cannot be justice minister
— John Steenhuisen
“I am aware [he] has a publicly declared interest in a game farm, but that is no reason to exclude him from executive office. It would be as ridiculous as saying that a farmer couldn’t be agriculture minister, a doctor couldn’t be health minister or a lawyer cannot be justice minister. If any conflicts of interest arise, these would be dealt with in terms of the established cabinet practices.”
Steenhuisen said that as party leader he had a responsibility to ensure the DA operated at “maximum potential”. There was nothing unusual in making changes to executive positions.
Aucamp acknowledged that he and his family were involved in game farming but denied having any links to captive lion breeding.
“Dr George’s allegations that my family or I are involved in the captive lion breeding industry are untrue and fabricated,” Aucamp told the Sunday Times. “I encourage anyone with information that my family or I are involved in the lion breeding sector to come forward.”
With regard to links with hunting organisations, Aucamp said he was invited to address a meeting of the Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa, which promotes hunting, in June 2025 as the DA’s spokesperson on agriculture. He said he spoke at the meeting about the GNU and about general aspects of the agricultural and wildlife ranching sectors.
He said the withdrawal of the abalone proposal at CITES was a result of a cabinet directive that more time was needed for public comment. As for the ministerial task team on captive lion breeding, its mandate ended on November 30 last year, but he granted a three-week extension that it had requested so it could finalise its report.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.