De Lille ouster clumsy at best
THE Democratic Alliance’s decision to fire Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille will haunt the party for a very long time to come. The party’s shoddy handling of the whole De Lille affair may have just created a political martyr out of the embattled mayor. This is not the end of De Lille – who has been shown to possess the ability to reinvent herself over time.
She has vowed to fight to the bitter end – knowing how drawn-out legal processes tend to be, the case may drag well into 2019, which is a crucial election year.
It is clear that the DA leadership wanted De Lille removed at all costs. She was fired for reasons that were different from the ones cited in her internal party disciplinary hearing. Basically, she was fired for telling radio talk show host Eusebius McKaiser that she would “walk away” once she had cleared her name. Incidentally, she was on the radio show to talk about her disciplinary hearing. That was the smoking gun for the party in deciding to fire her, using a flimsy clause in their constitution.
Section 3.5.1.2 of the DA constitution states that: “A member ceases to be a member when he or she . . . publicly declares his or her intention to resign and/or publicly declares his or her resignation from the party”. This clause explicitly refers to the membership of the party and not a government position. De Lille argues that her “walking away” comment referred to her position as mayor of Cape Town and not as a party member.
How the DA will prove that she was referring to her position as a party member will be extremely difficult – a case they are most likely to lose in court. It also remains to be seen whether the same clause can stand up to constitutional muster. It was the clumsiest of political ousters. In a letter to De Lille, speaker of the City of Cape Town Dirk Smit wrote that: “all privileges and facilities attaching to the office of the Executive Mayor will also cease with immediate effect. It would be appreciated if you would vacate your office as soon as possible and arrange for all municipal property in your possession to be handed in”.
It could have been neater. But perhaps that would be expecting too much from politicians. Politics is the theatre of skullduggery and back-stabbing. But this is not the end of De Lille. She has said as much.
“I’m ready to continue this fight, because to me it’s about my human rights, it’s about my political rights . . . it’s about showing South Africans that they are all equal before the law and before the Constitution.
“. . . I also want to show other South Africans . . . don’t allow other people to violate [your] rights. I’m so ready, I’m fit and I’m going to court on Friday morning,” she said at a press conference in Cape Town yesterday.
The least the DA could have done – if they were so sure of the strength of their disciplinary case against De Lille – was to allow for the disciplinary process to be concluded. South Africans love a political victim and are sympathetic towards perceived subjects of injustice. If De Lille wins this round, it would cement perceptions that she is being victimised by the party. This could hurt the DA, especially in the Western Cape.