This is a paid article which your subscription is allowing you to read.

A week ago, Democratic Alliance (DA) leader Geordin Hill-Lewis asked Mr Ramaphosa to reshuffle key DA members of the Cabinet. Over the weekend, Mr Ramaphosa was reported to have said that “ministers are appointees of the President… only the President can appoint ministers, finish and klaar.” That statement has been read as a direct challenge to the authority of the DA in the power-sharing agreement.

Over the weekend, News24 ran a false-news report suggesting that Hill-Lewis had asked for Steenhuisen to be relieved of his post as Minister of Agriculture in order to appease right-wing forces who wanted the party to exit the government. A quote from that report held that Steenhuisen’s “trouble began when he countered the ‘white genocide’ propaganda in the White House in a meeting with US President Donald Trump in May last year,” citing an unnamed source who reportedly said, “It doesn’t benefit AfriMAGA’s business model to have the DA in government because you remove the fear factor that someone is actually doing something.”

The Common Sense has spoken to senior figures in the DA, who say that Steenhuisen was removed because he had performed very poorly in his portfolio and that Hill-Lewis understood that examples of failure in the unity government would erode public support for that arrangement which was not in the country’s national interest.

The Common Sense has written at length about Steenhuisen’s poor performance in the government and as early as March had editorialised that Mr Ramaphosa should fire Steenhuisen to protect the integrity of the unity government. The newspaper has warned that if the DA tolerates ineptitude in the unity government, public support for both the DA and the government will slip and the party may later suffer the same fate as the ANC.

As the reasons for Steenhuisen’s firing were being misreported the X account @AdvocateBarryRoux alleged that the DA Minister of Public Enterprises, Dean MacPhearson, had hoodwinked taxpayers into financing a family holiday in Spain. The Common Sense has viewed documents that purport to support that, but on inspection they do not do so.

Sources who spoke to this newspaper alleged that something else was afoot and that the minister was closing in on corrupt networks in his department and that these had become concerned that channels of patronage may be cut off.

The Minister’s office sent a statement to The Common Sense that the Spain trip was funded by the minister himself and that no official costs were incurred.

It wouldn't be amiss to say that the evidence of the weekend could be read to suggest that a campaign was being driven for the DA to retain some of its underperforming Cabinet picks whilst pressure was created for the party to distance itself from those who were performing better.

Tensions within the unity government have also been brewing afresh around the Phala Phala corruption scandal.

Mr Ramaphosa has filed a legal application in the Western Cape High Court asking the court to block the parliamentary enquiry into where large amounts of cash hidden in one of his homes were sourced from. Despite advice that Parliament should oppose the application in order to protect its sovereignty and hold the executive to account, the Speaker of Parliament, who is appointed by the ANC, has decided against opposing it.

The Common Sense understands, however, that the parliamentary investigative committee looking into the scandal, and which does not have an ANC majority, will seek to oppose the president’s application setting up a battle between it and the Speaker. The Common Sense also understands that Mr Ramaphosa does not wish to testify before the committee and may resign if forced to do so.

There is a potential twist in the tail here that ANC sources are confident will not play-out. The DA has the power to call for a Parliamentary vote of no confidence which, if it went ahead, would likely remove Mr Ramaphosa from office. The DA’s power to do that means that the broader balance of power in the unity government is much more delicate than both Mr Ramaphosa and the Speaker’s statements and actions suggest. Should Hill-Lewis decide to take that card out of the pack the ANC will likely have to recalculate its strategies and approach to its alliance partner – which may help to reset the relationship between the parties towards more effective co-operation.

No doubt there are actors around who feel threatened by the unity government – and the trouble brewing around it likely arises from here. Yet the suggestion that those actors are the white-right, in as far as such a thing exists as a compelling force at all, seems farfetched. More likely is that there are actors who fear that a capable unity government will undermine corrupt patronage flows and that the arrangement should therefore be driven into failure.

The senior leadership of both parties would be wise to get ahead of this threat and to reset their working relationship and to stay in the unity government. Polls conducted by this newspaper in conjunction with the Social Research Foundation show that the arrangement is popular with ANC and DA voters alike who wish to work together to build a better country. The unity government is also the only option the country has to emerge as a successful unitary state failing which the country will break up into the enclave future that this newspaper has written so much about. Enclaves may offer a sustainable future for the middle classes but for the poor and unemployed the route to improved living standards will best be found through an effective administration in the Union Buildings.