RESIGNATION

18th January 2024

To whom it may concern

This serves to announce my resignation as an MP and as a member of the Democratic Alliance.

My detailed reasons are attached in my letter to the chairman of the Federal Executive along with the various permanent appendices.

In the main my reasons are the following:

1. The leadership of the DA has become increasingly uncomfortable with my public utterances over the past few months. This mainly concerns issues around the war on Gaza.

2. As a consequence I have been fired from my position in the shadow cabinet – notwithstanding any connection between my erstwhile portfolio and the events referred to.

3. Since then I have been accused of contradicting DA official policy and contravening a caucus injunction to only allow the shadow minister for DIRCO to comment on related matters. I have since received a ‘Cease and Desist’ notification (see Appendix).

4. In my response to the DA leadership I dispute the validity of any firm and documented policy as approved through appropriate structures. I note that no such policy is available on any DA website. Moreover, I have not been furnished with any caucus decision which empowers the shadow minister with sole rights of commentary on the matter.

5. This evinces a growing dysfunctional, undemocratic and authoritarian tendency in the party.

6. I am of the firm belief that insofar as such policy may exist on the war in Gaza, I have not directly contradicted party policy in any way.

7. As a consequence I cannot but infer that party leadership intends, not only to sideline me but also to prevent my return as a candidate MP on the list for the 2024 elections.

8. Over the same period I have repeatedly sought meetings with the leader and requested mediation processes to be instituted. Such requests have been met with silence.

9. The party leader has since said he is open to mediation contingent on me furnishing him with an apology in advance of any mediation. It is my understanding that ordinarily the terms and process of any mediation would address any apologies by either party as well as any attendant issues.

10. I am also concerned and have communicated as such my uneasiness about the perceptible shift by the party to the right – away from centrist liberal values and principles.

10. I remain committed to the Values and Principles of a party I joined some eight years ago to stem the malfeasance, ineptitude and failed policies of many years of ANC governance which has brought South Africa to a parlous state.

11.I have, during the course of this, discovered the value of processes which link constituents and their elected representatives in a direct and transparent fashion while honouring the principle of Freedom of Speech.

12. At this juncture I will evaluate and consider my future options which will always seek to serve human rights, economic prosperity and a more inclusive democracy.

13. I find myself unable to address and serve these aims appropriately within the confines of the DA in its current incarnation and leadership. This is permanent as we face all-important national elections.

14. Over the years I have made many firm friends amongst DA public representatives and dedicated activists. My decision, in no way, reflects poorly on these committed individuals.

15. I wish all those well who are fighting for a more meaningful polity and who seek to engender the change the country deserves and sorely needs.

Please refer to the comprehensive documentation I have attached hereto – The entire, relevant chronology is set out therein.. (See Appendix)

Ghaleb Cachalia

16th January, 2024

Helen Zille

Chairperson of Federal Executive Committee, The Democratic Alliance.

Re: My resignation as an MP and a member of the DA.

Dear Helen

My resignation

1. You will recall that, as per my statement post my removal from my shadow cabinet position, I had resolved, despite my contestation of the version as presented in the letter of dismissal from the shadow cabinet, to perform my legislative and oversight duties from the backbenches and to ensure that I served the party and the nation in continuing what I began many years ago – in the face of considerable opprobrium from a number of friends, colleagues and even family members.

2. However, you will appreciate that such service within the party cannot be made in a vacuum and requires colleagues and leadership to work together regardless of their differing views on certain matters. I therefore made a number of requests to meet with John Steenhuisen, and approached the party’s Federal Legal Commission (FLC) to institute a formal process of mediation (16 November 2023) given the breakdown of trust and collegiality I have experienced – necessary in my view if we are to work together, under one roof, as it were.

3. I have received no response with regard to meeting Steenhuisen and bar an acknowledgement of my request from the FLC, I have had no substantive response about any procedure as requested. By way of contrast, I must acknowledge that you responded immediately to my direct request to meet where you advised me to allow things to blow over – given Steenhuisen’s high level of current anger around issues concerning me. I acknowledge that I received similar advice from other members of the party. I thank you all for your support and advice.

4. I’m afraid though, that such withdrawal will not prevent Steenhuisen from effectively blocking my return to parliament as evinced by the level of alienation and a number direct and veiled references in caucus and on the caucus WhatsApp group. This clearly forebodes a manipulation of the system which will prevent my return to parliament post- elections – despite a decidedly more than adequate level of scoring in the evaluation process and an exemplary record in my erstwhile portfolio. This is attested to be the attainment of a 100% score in the DA’s evaluation of the performance incumbent MP’s on their legislature and constituency duties for the period May 2019 to November 2023.

5. On January 11, 2024, following an interview I gave to NewzRoom Afrika (accessible via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiAZOWPSkmY ) I received a letter – ostensibly from the desk of the shadow minister for International Relations and Co-operation, but clearly crafted by Steenhuisen’s team – advising me of her referral to the party’s federal Legal Commission requesting disciplinary action be taken against me and to the Gauteng Provincial Executive requesting that I be Red-Flagged, effectively barring me from the 2024 National Elections process.

6. These referrals were made in terms of the following provisions of our Federal Constitution:

“2.5.4 Any member, including a public representative, is guilty of misconduct if he or she:

2.5.4.1 publicly opposes the Party’s Values and Principles or repeatedly opposes published Party policies, except in or through the appropriate Party structures;

2.5.4.2 acts in a way which impacts negatively on the image or performance of the Party;”

7. I deny, for reasons set out later in this letter, that grounds exist to discipline me under these rules. NevertheIess, I have consistently stated that it is the prerogative of the leader of caucus in parliament to hire and fire members of his cabinet; that I will proceed to perform my legislative and oversight duties from the backbenches and will ensure that I serve the party and the nation in continuing what I began; and that I will continue to keep a watchful eye on human rights abuses here and globally and will always exercise my moral duty in this regard. That said, I remain loyal to the liberal values and essential principles of the DA.

8. However, I find myself, on reflection, unable to serve a party where some in key leadership positions, along with their advisors – official and unofficial who control the party – actively continue to sideline individuals while, lamentably, failing to grasp the emotional state of mind of the nation, and upholding an agenda that is essentially at odds with liberal values, particularly around freedom of speech.

9. I am unable to reconcile Democratic Centralism (the organisational principle of socialist and communist institutions and parties where all political decisions without exception are binding upon all members) with federalism, open debate, expression and interaction with the general public and within a party that espouses the fundamental principle of Freedom of Speech and Conscience – the issue of Palestine in general and Gaza in particular, being a case in point.

10. Moreover, the party’s worrying move away from the centre of the political spectrum, in its embracing of right-wing tribal, religious and ultra-libertarian partners, the appointment of PR/lobbying/electoral firms with decidedly dubious pasts and the wooing of organisations like the Afrikanerbond to endorse the multi-party charter, present serious cause for concern. If we seek to win over voters beyond the traditional pool of DA support – necessary for growth – we would need to address many historic and emotional issues as well as evincing a rational focus.

11. I have previously addressed this, at some length, in a letter to you and Steenhuisen on 9 November – to which I received no reply. In the letter referred to, I covered what I believed to be a number of important issues that have arisen out of the events that followed Hamas’s attack on 7 October, as input to the current issue of Gaza and to the broader matters of policy on Israel/ Palestine. While the Gaza matter served as a springboard for the letter, the issues, as detailed were broader and concerned the party and our leadership as we approach the upcoming elections. It was also in response to the leader’s recent statement on the matter.

12. The letter states, inter alia:

“The Palestinian question is in many ways pivotal…to…a broader understanding. The freedom of Palestinians to claim the same right of concern from the world as other oppressed peoples, including the Jews, and to exercise the right to tell their story has largely been suppressed, ignored or distorted through the lifespan of successive generations. It is only with the rise of resistance movements after 1967 and the growth, of late, of dissenting voices, including those of many Jews, that the story of their plight at the hands of successive Israeli governments has begun to emerge to counter widely- held sentiments in the industrial west…

…Not only do I view this as a matter of principle that speaks to our values, but I see this as a potential breakthrough to the pool of additional votes we seek – apart from our traditional reservoir. It’s not just about a foreign issue; it’s one which I believe would resonate with the sentiments of Mandela and many South Africans who understand and have historical experiences of settler issues and the consequences vis á vis their own land and dignity.

I strongly believe if we don’t embrace this, we will always be consigned to the representative confines of our traditional reservoir of historic votes. It will always allow the ANC to regroup and tap into the reservoir they have temporarily lost, as they struggle to reinvent themselves and rely on an unassailable narrative that has resonance in this regard.

We cannot be blind to the perception that we are a white party; it’s not about numbers – it’s about the side of history you’re seen to be on that earns you a place in the hearts of people seeking redress – here and elsewhere.”

13. It's clearly a question of hearts and minds and in the pursuit thereof it is important that the power of the purse not be allowed ride roughshod over enshrined values and principles.

14. In view of the apparent inability of the party’s leadership to grasp this and the aforementioned concerns and actions by Steenhuisen et al – which it is argued amount to constructive dismissal – I must inform you that I have decided, with much regret, to tender my resignation as MP and member of the DA. Of course, should the party wish to continue and conclude the disciplinary process against me, I will be willing to delay my resignation until such a date as I have no desire to obfuscate nor escape any allegations made. However, the party should be aware that during the intervening time, I will continue to publicly voice my opinion on Gaza. Further, I would need the party’s assurance that the process will be concluded by the 16th of February 2024 – the effective date of my resignation, in the event of the party’s pursuance of the disciplinary inquiry against me (i.e. one month’s notice).

15. I will continue to be vocal on the legacy of ineptitude and malfeasance which persists in all spheres of government – particularly where the ANC holds sway – and help foster an accountable polity that serves the voting public who place their faith in their representatives (often receiving little in return) and will always seek to champion human rights – here and elsewhere.

16. I have made, over my years in the DA, many solid friends. I thank them for their friendship, support and commitment. My decision, in no way, reflects adversely on these dedicated individuals and on the many activists and public representatives who doggedly seek to serve, often under trying circumstances.

17. I trust they will understand the conflicting conundrum I face with regard to issues and processes that sit uneasily with my own values and ethical principles.

18. In the section that follows, I detail the factual background that contextualises my statement above and places my version of events on record. I fully expect and accept that Steenhuisen, given his particular distaste for me, will likely place a different version on record.

The factual background

19. The current crisis that exists between Israel and Palestine is not new. Since at least 2009, there have been multiple requests, by multiple DA members, to place this issue on the Federal Congress agenda for proper debate and policy development. I, myself, agitated for this frequently. The calls fell on deaf ears and, fourteen years later after your off-the- cuff clarification of your position on the matter, there has been a rushed attempt to adopt a “policy” on the issue. The fallout has been catastrophic.

20. On 19 October 2023, the Parliamentary caucus debated the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. As I recall matters, the only firm decision communicated at the culmination of that sitting was that Emma Powell would act as party spokesperson on the matter. I do not recall any firm policy on the Middle East having been either agreed upon or communicated at that stage. You will no doubt be aware that, legally, decisions are only final and binding once they are communicated to those affected by the decision, having followed due process. Since, as I recall, there was no clear policy position communicated on that day either in writing or otherwise, it was and remains my view that there was no decision on policy capable of binding either me or any other member.

21. On 31 October 2013, I tweeted the following: “I will not be silenced. Israel is committing genocide […]”. In the tweet, I did not purport to speak on behalf of the party or as party spokesperson. I was ventilating my own position. I was, and remain of the view that I did not, therefore, violate the caucus decision that Powell would act as Party Spokesperson.

22. On 2 November, Steenhuisen removed me from my shadow cabinet position. For ease of reference, his full letter is appended as “Annexure A”. I would like to make the following points about the letter:

22.1. First, Steenhuisen sets out what he recalls was “decided at caucus” (disputed by me as above) as far as the DA’s position on the Middle East is concerned:

“At the conclusion of the meeting, caucus affirmed our party position in favour of a two-state solution, against the 7 October terrorist attacks on Israel, while calling for international law and access to humanitarian aid to be upheld at all times in Gaza.

Caucus affirmed that our Shadow Minister for International Relations and Cooperation would be the DA’s spokesperson on this matter.”

22.2. I concede that Powell was designated as party spokesperson. I deny the remainder of Steenhuisen’s version. The letter goes on to state that I “violated the caucus decision” when I tweeted on 31 October 2023. This was then invoked as the basis for stripping me of my shadow cabinet position when it was patently clear that the content of my utterances constituted the real basis for his displeasure.

22.3. As I explained above, my recollection is that there was no decision capable of violation. In any event, and assuming for the sake of argument that there was such a decision, I do not understand how my tweet violated it. I did not oppose or speak against the notion of a two-party solution, access to humanitarian aid, or adherence to international law. It is perfectly consistent to decry what I view as genocide, while simultaneously supporting (or at least not deviating from) the “position” Steenhuisen” alleged was adopted by caucus. The aforementioned issues notwithstanding, I accepted Steenhuisen’s decision, and released my statement accordingly on the same date. You will recall that I had resolved, despite my contestation of the version as presented in the letter of dismissal from the shadow cabinet, to perform my legislative and oversight duties from the backbenches and to ensure that I served the party and the nation in continuing what I began many years ago – in the face of considerable opprobrium from a number of friends, colleagues and even family members.

23. On 7 November 2023, Steenhuisen circulated a memorandum throughout party structures titled: “The DA’s position on the war in Gaza”. It is attached for ease of reference as “Annexure B”. This letter runs to four pages. It articulates a comprehensive position that is far more detailed, and covers far more topics than the simple position articulated by Steenhuisen (quoted above) in his letter to me dated 2 November.

24. To the extent that the memorandum’s contents include new substantive points as compared to the initial position allegedly agreed to by caucus, and to the extent that the memorandum is a communication of DA’s “policy” position, then it is a policy position formulated by Steenhuisen, and not the caucus. This is important because the DA’s constitution says the following of the Federal Leader’s policy making powers:

“The Federal Leader

Except when the Federal Congress, Federal Council or Federal Executive are in session, and within the framework of the Values, Principles and Programme of Action of the Party, interprets and makes the policy of the Party, provided that policy-making is limited to decisions urgently required in respect of new matters or new situations and that such decisions are reported to the next meeting of the Federal Council;”

25. As I explained above, it is impossible for the development of policy on the Gaza war to be categorised as “new matter” or “new situation” given that the Party had had multiple opportunities to engage this issue at Federal Congress since at least 2009. The result of this is that Steenhuisen had no standing to develop policy and if he did so, such policy, as per the DA's constitution, would need to have been tabled and ratified by the next Federal Council meeting, which was held on 4 December. There was no subsequent announcement that indeed this is what happened, no "confirmed policy" was made available or was circulated internally, indeed to this date no related policy has been made public on our website for the wider audience and our constituents to see. As there is no evidence that the Federal Council approved Steenhuisen's position I must assume that either it was not considered or maybe that it was even declined. Accordingly, the memorandum, to the extent that it is supposed to constitute DA policy, reflects policy that was unlawfully developed in violation of the DA’s constitution.

26. With all due respect to Steenhuisen and his position as Federal Leader, this is an unholy bungle that evinces a remarkably poor grasp pf DA’s constitutional prescripts. As Federal Leader, Steenhuisen should abide the DA’s values, principles, rules, and constitution to the letter. Sadly, it is my opinion, that he shown scant regard not only for the constitution but for the values and principles of the DA including the commitment to freedom, opportunity, fairness, diversity and federalism. Further, to try and force members to adhere to his personal positions, dressed up as the “party line” amidst such a confusing administrative mess is unfair in the extreme. It is, in my view, the antithesis of the leadership that the DA requires and deserves.

27. I then conducted an interview on Newzroom Afrika about South Africa’s application to the International Court of Justice. This, too, was met with opprobrium from the party. Following this, I received an extremely personal and deeply insulting letter dated 11 January 2024 from the DA’s Shadow Minister for International Relations, Emma Powell in which she stated that she had no choice but to refer me for disciplinary action. This letter is attached for ease of reference as “Annexure D”. It is submitted that Powell has no locus standi to request a red flagging of my candidacy – further indicating the ‘use’ of Powell to drive the Steenhuisen agenda.

28. The substance of this letter, too, requires comment:

28.1. Powell stated in the second paragraph that:

“You will recall that in late 2023, after lengthy deliberations by our National Caucus, our Party adopted a final position on the War. In terms of Section 2.4.3 of our Federal Constitution, this was later detailed in a memorandum from the Federal Leader, and circulated to all Party members. A number of further discussions were held with various caucuses across the Country, all of whom were given an opportunity to ventilate their views towards the refinement of later incarnations of our policy, subject to the Leader’s approval, as the situation developed.”

28.2. There is no need to repeat what I have already said above about the caucus meeting and the “policy” development process. However, the paragraph again highlights the confusing manner in which this “policy” was ostensibly developed. Powell states that further discussions were held with other caucuses across the country, and that their “ventilations” may contribute to “later incarnations of our policy, subject to the leader’s approval”. First, as far as I’m aware, there were only discussions in Cape Town and Johannesburg (not with Caucuses) – aimed at ameliorating any fallout from Steenhuisen’s handling of the matter. In any event, this hardly constitutes “around the country”. Second, Powell’s assertion that amendments to the future incarnations of the policy were approved by Steenhuisen serves to buttress my point above that Steenhuisen was in fact developing the policy. He cannot argue that the “policy” was developed by any of the caucuses because the constitution does not provide that policy developed by caucuses is subject to the assent of the Federal Leader. The reality is the Steenhuisen exercised strict control over the policy process and did so (evinced elsewhere by Powell’s expression of frustration to me about the hoops her statements have to pass through), I would argue, in flagrant violation of the DA’s constitution.

28.3. Powell continues:

Despite being fully aware that you are not permitted to address the media on this subject in your capacity as a Member of Parliament for the Democratic Alliance, this morning you appeared on Newzroom Afrika and provided a full televised interview on your perspectives and opinions relating to South Africa's case before the International Court of Justice.

28.4. The constitution only prevents caucus members on differing publicly from caucus decisions. I have set out above my view as to why no binding policy decision was taken. I was only aware that Powell was to operate as party spokesperson. At no stage did I purport to be the party spokesperson or undermine Powell’s authority in that regard.

28.5. The letter goes on to mount a blistering attack:

“In this nationally televised interview, you not only openly criticised the very Party that you are paid to represent on the national stage, but you publicly disavowed our position, heaping praise and glory on our kleptocratic national government – the same government that we aim to unseat in no less than four months. With astounding hubris, you proceeded to muse that former ANC leaders such as Albert Luthuli and Nelson Mandela would have likely supported your position.”

28.6. This is an utter distortion of the contents of the interview, let alone insulting to not only myself but to the legacies of both Albert Luthuli and Nelson Mandela.I invoked their support, not for me, but for the principled stand taken. I didn’t realise that the fact that I am paid to represent the DA means that I should self- censor on issues of national importance in circumstances where there was no final and binding policy position taken by parliamentary caucus, and in further circumstances where I viewed John’s incarnation of the policy as articulated on

7 November to have been unlawfully developed in violation of the DA’s constitution. In the circumstances, I prioritised my right to speak freely. I frankly refuse to be subject to the “party line” in these circumstances. I stand by this decision.

28.7. Furthermore, even if one were to accept Steenhuisen’s letter of 7 November or Powell’s 17 bullet points in her letter to me of 11 January as an expression DA policy, I did not contradict any such policy. For a detailed analysis of what was said in the interview vis á vis Steenhuisen and Powell’s “policy” statements, se Appendix E. The only reasonable inference is that there is a clear attempt by Steenhuisen et al to oust me, using the Powell letter as the mechanism.

In conclusion

I joined the DA because its values and principles resonated strongly with me – at a time when the ANC under Zuma had facilitated what the Zondo Commission characterised as State Capture. My disillusionment with the ANC had predated this malfeasance, ineptitude and failed policies many years before.

Since joining, I stood as the DA’s mayoral candidate in Ekurhuleni and together with a stellar team brought the ANC below 50%. I lost the mayoral election by 4 votes which were bought by the ANC.

I transitioned to parliament at the leader’s behest and went through all the processes and hoops expected of every member – I sought no favour, nor was granted any. I have served diligently and loyally in successive portfolios and committees – including the parliamentary Ethics Committee.

My disillusionment with the leadership – its pettiness, short-sightedness, authoritarianism and departure from the values and principles of the party – is documented above and in the various appendices.

In October 2019 the DA instituted a review which reported on 19 October 2019. The report states: “It is our carefully considered view that the single most important factor in shaping the DA’s current circumstances is a failure of effective leadership.”

It is my view that the Steenhuisen leadership, which succeeded the leadership under the review’s purview, has failed in terms of the criteria the report dealt with and which his succession was intended to remedy.

The review highlighted, inter alia:

- Confusion about the party’s position on key issues

- Deep divisions within the national caucus

- A breakdown in trust between the leader and some of the party’s members

- A failure to produce a credible policy platform – particularly pertinent in my view with regard to the matter of Palestine.

Under the sub-section, Culture, the following is highlighted as having been present (inter alia) and requiring attention:

- Authoritarianism

- Fear of speaking out

- Leaking

The Review further recommended, “together with training on the DA’s philosophy, the party sources and provides training on how to lead diverse groups of people in emotionally charged environments for every person in national, provincial or regional leadership positions as well as national, provincial and metro caucus leadership positions. It is not possible to legislate for every aspect of human relationships in a political party. Leadership is critical and needs to be exercised more effectively across the board”.

It is submitted that the Steenhuisen leadership has barely addressed any of the abovementioned aspects highlighted in the Review and worse, has been complicit in perpetuating some of the more egregious elements.

Under these circumstances, leading up to an important national election, I find myself unable to tack and sail behind a leadership that has lost its way.

I hope you and other colleagues, friends and ordinary members in the DA understand my view – time, as is said, is longer than rope. I hope and pray for an honourable solution to the party’s and the systemic problems that beset our country’s democracy. I will always be ready to play my part in whatever incarnation necessary.

I look forward to your urgent response – within 24 hours of receipt hereof – you will appreciate that I need, in all fairness and transparency to make this document public thereafter; my previous experience with leaks informs this decision.

With kind regards, Yours, in liberty

Ghaleb Cachalia

Appendixes follow – see here.

ENDS