DA leader laments ‘messy’ De Lille saga
AS THE debate over diversity in the DA hots up ahead of the party’s crucial congress this weekend, DA chief whip in the National Assembly John Steenhuisen has described attempts to remove Mayor Patricia de Lille as “messy”.
His comments yesterday came as De Lille said for the past seven months she had been subjected to a “deluge of allegations” by the DA, with new accusations surfacing from all quarters almost daily.
She said she took the principled decision to deal with these allegations head-on in a bid to clear her name. She says has been smeared in public and believes her name must be cleared in public.
However, the application for public access to De Lille’s hearing was dismissed. The DA was left embarrassed earlier this year when De Lille survived a motion of no confidence against her with one vote. This was after the party instructed its caucus in the province to vote against De Lille.
Steenhuisen said: “The situation in Cape Town is not ideal, it’s messy. In the final analysis, when people look back at what has happened in Cape Town, I think the DA will emerge stronger from it. While it is messy, untidy and uncomfortable now, I think for the longterm prospects of the party it is right that we deal with serious allegations that are made. Whether you’re male or female, the rules must apply equally,”
De Lille is accused of contravening the federal constitution and bringing the party into disrepute. She is also accused of covering up corruption, nepotism and using state funds to upgrade her private home.
In a statement yesterday, De Lille denied allegations and hauled the party to open her disciplinary hearing to the public.
“The allegations are in any event in the public domain and any confidentiality which may have existed has long disappeared, primarily because my political opponents enthusiastically leak details of any charges, however ridiculous they may be. I will continue to fight for an open hearing even if this means that I have to return to the courts,” De Lille said.
She said her lawyers do not believe that any meaningful distinction can be drawn between the public and the media when it comes to access to the hearing.
“They say this because in the context of criminal trials, access by the public was always a given, but access by the media and television in particular remained controversial until the Oscar Pistorius trial and the adoption of ‘open justice’ as the default position in such trials.
“Nowadays it can never be contended that public or the media can totally prohibited from access to criminal trials. Reasonable conditions may however be imposed, as is clear from the Van Breda judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeal,” De Lille said.
She said she would continue to fight for an open hearing, even if it means “that I have to return to the courts”.