Unlike suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu, the axed DA deputy minister Andrew Whitfield admitted the allegations against him that he violated established executive practices when he travelled to the US without getting permission from his boss.
This is according to President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has argued that drawing a comparison on his actions against both Mchunu and Whitfield was flawed.
The allegations against Mchunu still have to be tested and firing him now when he could later be cleared would essentially place him in a difficult corner, whereas Whitfield directly disobeyed him, he argued.
Ramaphosa said this in his affidavit in the court case brought by former president Jacob Zuma in his capacity as MK Party leader.
Ramaphosa is defending his decision to place Mchunu on special leave instead of firing him following the explosive allegations levelled against him by KwaZulu-Natal provincial commissioner Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that he has links to underworld criminals.
“The applicants argue that this so-called lesser offence [by Whitfield] was met with a more stringent sanction, whereas Mchunu has been given a leave of absence in the face of far more serious allegations. The analogy the applicants seek to draw is flawed,” said Ramaphosa.
He said that the comparison cannot be made as Whitfield had “admitted” the allegations levelled against him and that he had even “acknowledged that he had violated the rules and established practises applicable to the members of the executive”.
Ramaphosa in his statement explaining the axing of Whitfield said the former deputy minister had admitted to his transgressions in his letter of apology to his office where he “indicated that he was aware that his actions had violated the rules and practices governing the conduct of members of the executive”.
The allegations against minister Mchunu, on the other hand, are untested, and will be investigated by the commission of inquiry. Minister Mchunu has not admitted any of the allegations against him
— Present Cyril Ramaphosa
Ramaphosa in that media statement said DA leader John Steenhuisen had also indicated to him that Whitfield was expecting some action to be taken against him for going to the US without permission.
However the DA had been so angered by Whitfield’s axing that the party had considered exiting the government of national unity (GNU) earlier this month.
So serious was this consideration that Ramaphosa had to cancel his planned trip to Spain at the eleventh hour in case the DA pulled out of the GNU, meaning at least six of the party’s ministers would have resigned along with the deputies, a move that could have had serious implications for the running of the government.
Ramaphosa has insisted that he was justified to fire Whitfield, but the same cannot be said about Mchunu.
“The allegations against minister Mchunu, on the other hand, are untested, and will be investigated by the commission of inquiry. Minister Mchunu has not admitted any of the allegations against him,” said Ramaphosa.
“A decision to dismiss him would therefore be based on untested allegations, as opposed to admitted misconduct, which was the case with deputy minister Whitfield.”
He said that the allegations faced by Mchunu were far more serious than Whitfield’s transgressions and required a full investigation.
Ramaphosa also sought to dismiss the allegations that he took a soft approach with Mchunu because he is a political ally in the ANC.
“The applicants also allege that my decision to place minister Mchunu on special leave rather than dismissing him amounts to special treatment of an ally. This allegation is based on pure speculation and conjecture. I deny it in the strongest terms,” said Ramaphosa.
“I have dealt with minister Mchunu in accordance with my constitutional powers, having exercised my judgment regarding the appropriate course of action to adopt in the particular circumstances in this case.”
“Far from revealing bias on my part, the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the allegations reveals the seriousness with which I take the allegations against Mchunu. There is value, in my view, in the public airing of these allegations because that process will itself expose the conduct within the police services to scrutiny.
“Once I have the outcomes of that process, I will be in a position to consider whether minister Mchunu should be retained in cabinet. Until then he should not exercise any powers and placing him on special leave archives that outcomes.”
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.