In a dramatic turn of events, Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi has weathered a fierce political storm, surviving a motion of no confidence brought against him by the Democratic Alliance (DA). But here’s where it gets controversial: the motion, which aimed to unseat Lesufi, was overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of parties in the Gauteng legislature, leaving the DA’s efforts in tatters. Was this a legitimate attempt at accountability, or a politically motivated move? Let’s dive in.
The DA’s motion was rooted in a series of allegations against Lesufi, including the unlawful establishment of the Gauteng crime wardens, also known as AmaPanyaza, the Tembisa corruption scandal, and broader concerns over general corruption, 177 forensic reports, lifestyle audits, NPOs, and the treatment of cancer patients in Gauteng. These are serious claims, but did they hold enough weight to convince the legislature?
In a lopsided vote, only the FF Plus supported the motion, while the ANC, MK Party, ActionSA, EFF, PA, Rise Mzansi, IFP, ACDP, and BOSA unanimously rejected it. The final tally? 24 votes in favor, 54 against, one abstention, and the speaker abstaining from voting. The motion failed spectacularly, but why did so many parties dismiss it outright?
Critics argue the motion was incompetent, frivolous, and lacking in substance, raising questions about the DA’s strategy. And this is the part most people miss: the DA had actually seconded Lesufi’s nomination during last year’s first sitting of the Gauteng legislature post-elections. Does this undermine their credibility in bringing this motion now?
The outcome wasn’t entirely unexpected, as the DA lacked the numerical support to succeed. Yet, the episode raises broader questions about political accountability and the role of opposition parties in holding leaders to task. Is this a missed opportunity for genuine oversight, or a politically motivated attack that backfired?
What do you think? Was the DA justified in its motion, or did it overstep its bounds? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is a conversation worth having.