Until November last year, Dr Dion George was one of the Democratic Alliance’s least controversial figures.
A quiet elder in Parliament, George had sat on the opposition benches since 2008, served as the party’s long-time finance chief, and spent two decades inside the DA without attracting much public attention.
Even his appointment to the government of national unity (GNU) as minister of forestry, fisheries and the environment passed with little fanfare, especially when compared with higher-profile DA deployments like Siviwe Gwarube in education or Leon Schreiber in home affairs.
Forestry and fisheries is not, after all, a headline department.
That changed abruptly when DA leader John Steenhuisen asked President Cyril Ramaphosa to remove George from the Cabinet.
This matters because, constitutionally, the power to hire and fire ministers rests solely with the president.
In ANC tradition, presidents may consult party leadership before reshuffles — but they are not required to. The multiparty coalition agreement changes this up.
In this case, Ramaphosa offered no public explanation. What later emerged was that Steenhuisen had cited alleged underperformance and proposed that DA spokesperson Willie Aucamp replace George.
George was in Brazil, attending COP30, when he was fired. At the time, he struck a conciliatory tone, saying: “I respect the party’s decision and remain focused on serving South Africa.”
That calm did not last long.
Reports soon surfaced suggesting that George’s removal was linked to his stance against South Africa’s captive lion breeding industry and the associated lion bone trade — a deeply contested sector with powerful commercial interests. Aucamp, by contrast, is publicly aligned with wildlife breeding and hunting interests. Steenhuisen rejected the suggestion that external pressure had influenced his decision.
Then the fight escalated.
Shortly after George’s removal, reports emerged alleging financial mismanagement by Steenhuisen, including the misuse of a party credit card and a court order related to unpaid personal credit card debt. Steenhuisen denied abusing party resources.
George, however, made it clear that he believed his axing was retaliation.
He claimed that, in his capacity as the DA’s finance chief, he had confiscated Steenhuisen’s party credit card after uncovering what he described as “serious financial irregularities”.
The DA’s Federal Legal Commission (FLC) was tasked with investigating.
What followed was an extraordinary public unravelling.
In late December, Willie Aucamp submitted a formal complaint to the Public Protector, asking for an investigation into George for the possible abuse of state resources.
Aucamp said he had been made aware of what he described as a baseless investigation into his private business affairs, one that he claimed was politically motivated and falsely aimed at linking him to the lion breeding industry.
He asked that the Public Protector be allowed to investigate without speculation.
But the story did not end there.
In correspondence dated 8 January 2026, the Office of the Public Protector confirmed that it was assessing a complaint submitted by George, which seeks an investigation into Aucamp’s conduct, including an alleged failure to disclose personal commercial interests and potential breaches of the Executive Ethics Code.
The Public Protector summarised George’s allegations as including unlawful interference in the mandate of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment; the circumstances of George’s removal; and Aucamp’s appointment, which George argues was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the GNU.
Then on Thursday this week, George resigned and went public.
His resignation statement was blistering.
He accused Steenhuisen of demanding “co-option” rather than principle, of clinging to power in the GNU “at any cost”, and of muzzling the DA parliamentary caucus on key issues like Black Economic Empowerment and South Africa’s foreign policy alignment with authoritarian states.
Most damagingly, he argued that Steenhuisen’s personal financial vulnerability had left the DA with a leader who cannot challenge the ANC inside the GNU and who cannot leave it.
The DA quickly responded by noting that George resigned before facing a pending disciplinary process at the FLC.
The allegations include irregular staff appointments, the use of departmental resources for internal party matters, and bringing the party into disrepute through the media.
The party says it would have preferred George to submit to the process.
But by now, the real story is no longer about process. It has everything to do with power.
In April, the DA goes to congress to elect new leaders.
Steenhuisen has led the party since November 2019, nearly six years. This congress matters more than any before it because the DA now holds real national power: twelve Cabinet and deputy ministerial posts inside the GNU.
Those positions shape the DA’s future prospects and how it negotiates its political marriage with the ANC.
The way the George matter was handled has ignited a latent power battle in the DA- that Steenhuisen was costing the party more than enabling it.
This is the first time the DA’s internal factional battles have spilled so publicly into view. That is not because the party has suddenly become dysfunctional.
It is because, for the first time, the stakes are real. And this will not be the last of these fights.
Thanks for reading. Please share our journalism and help spread the word about The Debrief Network. Best, Q
