Although the Government of National Unity (GNU) pledged to prioritise the people’s interests, recent revelations by Democratic Alliance (DA) federal chairperson Helen Zille have raised concerns about whether the GNU serves the public or business interests.
Zille recently disclosed that the DA was instructed by business interests to protect President Cyril Ramaphosa from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), though she emphasised that protecting Ramaphosa was not the DA’s role. Her comments have ignited social media debate, with many South Africans questioning the legitimacy of the unity government.
This is not the first time Zille has made such remarks. In June, following the May 2029 national and provincial elections, she said the DA would protect Ramaphosa in the event of an impeachment motion related to the Phala Phala scandal.
This position marked a shift from the party’s previous stance, as the DA had previously called for Ramaphosa’s removal over the Phala Phala matter.
The DA initially backed impeachment after a Section 89 panel report indicated that Ramaphosa might have a case to answer.
However, the party’s stance shifted when the EFF introduced a resolution during the first parliamentary session to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Zille clarified that while the DA would not support a no-confidence motion, it would consider backing impeachment if sufficient evidence were presented, in accordance with the governing coalition’s principles.
This nuanced stance is notable, given that DA leader John Steenhuisen previously accused Ramaphosa of “treason” over the “couch money” controversy related to Phala Phala.
South Africa continues to face a high cost of living, unemployment, crime, gender-based violence, service delivery shortfalls, and widespread inequality.
Speaking to , political analyst Professor Sipho Seepe commented that Zille’s statements reveal double standards within the DA regarding the rule of law. He argued that Zille would likely demand accountability from Ramaphosa over Phala Phala if the DA’s interests were not at stake.
“The interests of business take precedence over accountability and the rule of law. This means Ramaphosa is not a prisoner; when the DA says ‘jump,’ he asks ‘how high?’ He is a compromised president,” Seepe said.
Seepe also questioned whether the DA–ANC coalition prioritises business over the welfare of the marginalised population, suggesting that democracy is being sacrificed to serve big business interests. “The ANC knows this but is desperate to cling to power,” he added.
The DA has voiced opposition to a coalition involving the ANC, EFF, and MKP, arguing it would harm the country and drive away investors. Responding to this stance, Seepe observed that investors are primarily motivated by profit.
“Investors had no issue supporting apartheid and authoritarian regimes. This democracy, attained through significant bloodshed, must be protected—even from big business,” he said.
Margaret Mathole, a concerned citizen, questioned the GNU’s legitimacy, pointing to Zille’s freedom to comment on political matters compared to ANC members.
“Why can’t the ANC remove the DA from the government? At this rate, she will divide the country even further. This reflects poorly on the ANC’s integrity,” she told .
Amos Pontsha expressed concern that prioritising business over the public interest could signal that South Africa remains focused on protecting the minority elite. “What about us? Are we just bread crumbs in the corner of no choice? The President must do better,” he said.
Zille has not yet responded to questions sent to her by .
Meanwhile, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) recently cleared Ramaphosa in the Phala Phala matter. The NPA has decided not to press criminal charges against the president regarding the farm theft incident that nearly brought his leadership to an end two years ago.
Politics
