Gloves are off as former DA councillor wrestles with party ‘bullies’
The DA has spent nine years and an estimated R3m axing one of its councillors for “unpaid” party fees of R5,621. This is despite two court judgments against it in its battle against the former speaker of the Bitou council, Johann Brummer.
And it is not over yet. Last week the party filed an application in the Supreme Court of Appeal to have a Cape Town high court judgment in favour of Brummer overturned.
Brummer denies the allegation, adding he has forked out about R3m in legal costs to claim damages for his dismissal. He suspects the DA’S legal onslaught has more to do with him flagging allegedly illegal activities by Bitou council party officials. Brummers insists the DA used a trumped up disciplinary matter, in the form of confusion about an unpaid fee, to remove him as a councillor in 2012. To do this the party relied on an incorrect policy document which stated that “candidate fee” arrears triggered automatic termination of party membership, Brummer said.
He said it was ironic that at the time he was in credit with the DA: ” I have never owed the DA a cent, let alone R5,621. The DA did a partial reconciliation of my accounts that shows they, in fact, owed me money. It was never about the money, that was just an excuse to silence me. The DA has had nine years to prove I owed the money, yet they have never come forward with a ledger account. Why? For the simple reason that I did not owe them anything and they have known that all along.”
Until his dismissal Brummer was a stalwart DA councillor in the southern Cape, earning a reputation as a graft-buster for exposing several high-ranking politicians. He famously came to blows with a fellow councillor during a particularly rowdy session and was often vilified by his political opponents.
After his dismissal Brummer tried unsuccessfully to challenge the decision in the high court. He subsequently lodged a damages claim against the DA that went to court in 2019.
The DA tried to block the claim on grounds that Brummer no longer had legal recourse regarding his dismissal after the initial high court ruling. However, last month the Cape Town high court ruled that Brummer’s damages case could go ahead.
Last week the DA insisted its action against Brummer related to the allegedly unpaid fee, meaning his membership of the party had lapsed in terms of clause 3.5.1.9 of its federal constitution. It did not comment on allegations that he may have been silenced for raising awkward questions and would not divulge how much it had spent on the matter to date.
“Members of the DA are subject to the DA constitution. If they elect not to comply they must face the consequences, which is what happened here.
“He lost his membership as a matter of law and in accordance with what the DA constitution objectively dictates,” it said.
“His membership was cessated [sic] by operation of law due to him not complying with the DA constitution.”
The party confirmed it had filed an application for special leave to appeal to the SCA.
Brummer said he was one of numerous DA members who had been muscled out of the party similarly: “It’s amazing how the DA gets its knickers in a knot over the qualifications shenanigans, but is quite comfortable with perjury and abuse of process at its core.
“It is certainly not in the best interests of the DA itself to continue to litigate expensively, with repeated unmeritorious appeals. The rational course of action for a normal litigant caught with its pants down, as the DA has been, would be to call a halt to the litigation and escalating costs and not continue throwing good money after bad,” Brummer said.
“I am in the very fortunate position to be able to hold these bullies to account and fully intend to do so,” he added.