Is the DA turning a blind eye to sexual misconduct?

WHEN a political party claims that its public representatives are the best and brightest people South Africa has to offer and are guided by the party’s values and principles, but then turns a blind eye to alleged sexual abuse in its own ranks and reluctantly acts only when exposed for its indifference, it is fundamentally flawed and betrays the public trust. 

On or about 25 April 2022, a schoolgirl and her father reported to a George DA councillor that George DA deputy mayor Raybin Figland and the daughter exchanged explicit personal images and sexual messages on WhatsApp.

The incident was confirmed by eventual admission, and the DA’s Federal Legal Commission (FLC) noted on 20 February 2024: “As a leader in the local executive government, Figland is expected to show uberrima fides in his conduct, the highest standard of good faith. Engaging in extortionist behaviour, regardless of the age of the person involved, does not meet this standard by any stretch of the imagination … Furthermore, the age of [the victim] is only relevant in determining whether Figland committed a crime and is not a deciding factor in determining whether a prima facie act of misconduct has been committed.”

The councillor reported the matter to the DA leadership structures within days.

For 19 months, nothing happened.

On 10 October 2023, the matter was reported to a Rapport journalist.

On 15 October, Rapport published the story — “Gooi ma’ klippe, sê DA-lid oor sekstekste".

After 19 months of delinquent inertia, the DA burst into activity.

On 17 October, two days after the Rapport story, the matter served before the party's complaint tagging committee.

On 30 October, 11 working days after the Rapport story, an FLC delegation arrived in George to investigate the matter.

On 20 February 2024, an investigation report recommended that Figland be charged and the matter be referred for a disciplinary hearing. The report also recommended Figland’s suspension from DA activities (no more than a vacation from party obligations), but not for the actual sexual abuse; for apparent interference with a witness.

The hearing commenced on 10 May and concluded on 24 June.

It took 22 months after Figland’s sexual abuse of a schoolgirl was reported for the DA to charge him. Some 666 days.

It took 27 months for the DA-led George council to decide not to proceed against him. Some 915 days.

The DA completely disregarded the accusations of gender-based violence (GBV) against its George deputy mayor for 19 months. Federal Council chair Helen Zille’s spokesperson, Richard Newton, told Rapport in the same story that the accusations were not in the form of a complaint; that the accusations were baseless and without foundation; that nobody was conducting an investigation; and that an investigation would be conducted only when a complaint was made.

The DA acted only when the accusations were ventilated in the national media, and there is no indication that the abuse would have triggered any DA response had that not happened.

On the same day as the Rapport story, the George speaker received two complaints from DA coalition councillors. He authorised an investigation on 16 November and instructed an independent investigator on 7 December. This was an investigation demanded by law [Item 13(1) (a) of Schedule 1 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000], and the George Delegations at paragraph B.2.7. This investigation was independent of any DA investigation. The DA investigation is also independent of the speaker’s investigation.

The formidable FLC chair, advocate Glynnis Breytenbach — a seasoned jurist and former prosecutor for the National Prosecuting Authority — noted twice in the 20 February FLC investigation report that Figland’s responses to her questions were “clearly not true”. Breytenbach also confronted Figland during the disciplinary hearing, accusing him of lying to her.

The report confirms that Figland interfered with witnesses: the basis for recommending that FedEx suspend Figland pending the finalisation of the disciplinary process. It also includes testimony about the probability that this was not an isolated incident.

Belatedly, some 22 months after the incident had been reported to the DA structures, the party suspended Figland from all DA activities. He remained deputy mayor — while the DA did not regard him as fit to represent the party, it had no problem with him representing the people of George.

The DA disregarded an intimation by Figland, as early as 15 February this year, “that he would rather resign than cause the party harm”. Figland referred to the upcoming elections of 29 May and suggested that the media would highlight the fact that “another black leader” had left the DA. Clearly the DA concurred, for Figland was not encouraged to resign from his office, the council or the DA. The reputational damage of losing “another black leader” clearly trumped the expected damage of a leader allegedly sexually abusing a schoolgirl.

On 25 July, 27 months almost to the day after the complaint was first made, George council adopted a recommendation not to proceed against Figland. This was informed by an almost ludicrous investigation authorised by the speaker in answer to the 15 October 2023 complaints by two councillors.

In essence, the investigator asked Figland whether he sexually abused a schoolgirl; Figland denied it. The investigator, failing to identify the victim and in the absence of a complaint or criminal charge by the victim, accepted Figland’s version.

Figland attempted the same denial a month later but Breytenbach was never going to fall for it — and, in any event, the identity of the victim was known as early as April 2022, if anyone cared to “investigate”; Breytenbach interviewed the victim days after the speaker’s investigator claimed she could not be identified.

The DA whip proposed an adjustment to the recommendation, with new wording that left little doubt that the DA caucus was convinced of Figland’s guilt. The adjustment was abandoned after intervention by the council’s legal adviser. The entire DA caucus voted not to proceed, even though it knew about Figland’s suspension from DA activities and the damning evidence obtained by the FLC investigation.

The next DA Federal Council, probably this month or next, will decide Figland’s fate. It will be some 900 days after Figland’s extortion and alleged sexual abuse of a schoolgirl were reported.

By Figland’s own admission to the FLC, he is guilty of GBV (DA Federal Legal Commission report dated February 20, 2024, paragraphs 4.1.7; 4.1.12; and 4.7.2.). His culpability is aggravated by his behaviour during and immediately after the FLC investigation. Any process or decision that prevents his immediate removal from office and from the George council and delays the termination of his DA membership is as contemptible as his behaviour.

Fortunately, on July 30, a George Freedom Front Plus councillor asked the speaker to reopen the sexual abuse investigation due to evidence not previously considered.

Despite reporting this issue to numerous media outlets, political and religious leaders, GBV prevention activists and practitioners (individuals and organisations) and political commentators, the only response I received was from Vrye Weekblad.

This alarming apathy may well be the inevitable consequence of prolonged indifference.

The Albert Fritz matter

The Albert Fritz sexual abuse allegations had been ignored for many years before it became impossible to ignore the rumours. Media reports indicate that the allegations involving young women employed in his office dated back to when he was the Western Cape MEC of social development from 2011.

The misconduct allegedly included grooming, sexual harassment and alcohol abuse, with the incidents reported by former staff members. These events were part of a broader investigation that led to his suspension and eventual resignation from political roles.

The eventual, belated denouement of this matter at least provided the management standard for dealing with sexual abuse: after the scandal broke, Sowetan reported on 30 January 2022 that Western Cape Premier Alan Winde “confirmed that Fritz was accused of sexual misconduct, and said an independent investigation has been launched … to test the veracity of the allegations” — a standard that should have been applied much earlier, when a groundswell of suspicion started to crystallise concern.

The Memory Booysen allegations

There is a years-long record of alleged sexual abuse — GBV — by Memory Booysen while he was DA mayor of Bitou, Eden and Garden Route. Here is a timeline:

2011-2024: Booysen serves as mayor of Bitou, Eden and Garden Route.

17 August, 2012: A DA councillor reports Booysen’s alleged GBV to Zille.

11 May, 2013: An editor reports Booysen’s alleged GBV to Zille.

13 May, 2013: The DA councillor responds to the editor’s submission.

2 June, 2016: Media — “Bitou mayor denies ‘sexting' allegations".

16 June, 2016: Media — “Mayor sexting scandal unfolds"

31 August, 2016: Booysen is elected Eden District mayor.

6 October, 2016: Media — “Eden mayor in hot water again?" 

There is no record of any investigation into the alleged GBV; no investigation was authorised by the speakers of Bitou, Eden and Garden Route. The number of watchers on the wall spanning 13 years since 2011 is too numerous to note: federal leaders, federal chairs, provincial leaders, political heads, speakers, caucus chairs, whips, councillors. But no investigations. Oh, Zille did “go into” one of the matters and chalked up the behaviour to the throes of an apparent divorce, citing the then Tokyo Sexwale break-up.

Instead, Booysen was redeployed — promoted — from municipal mayor to district mayor to member of the provincial legislature.

On 2 June 2016, the George Herald (above) reported on “a series of steamy WhatsApp messages between what appears to be Booysen and a woman named Pumi, who applied for a job in the municipality’s library … widely circulated among journalists and politicians last week”.

Then-DA spokesperson Liza Albrecht, reported the George Herald, “said the party believed the email sent by a seemingly anonymous source formed part of a broader and concerted attempt to discredit Booysen … This is not the first time that unfounded and sensational allegations about DA public representatives have been distributed from this particular email address.”

Albrecht added that the information in the email was unverifiable and did not come from a trusted source. “As such, the party can only act if there is credible and verifiable evidence to substantiate the allegations.”

Not so. A speaker is obliged to authorise an investigation when they suspect wrongdoing. Only an inquiry can determine the veracity of allegations. By the DA’s own standards (see the Fritz matter above), these circumstances demanded “an independent investigation to test the veracity of the allegations”.

The sheer weight of consistent allegations against Booysen had reached a tipping point of credibility, clearly demanding an investigation. Yet, to this day, the allegations remain untested.

The DA is known, on a number of occasions, to have summarily terminated party memberships when prescribed financial contributions were in arrears. Curiously, serious allegations of GBV trigger no such urgency. Why would that be?

♦ Note: I complained to Zille about the DA’s handling of the Figland case on 10 October, 2023. I reported the Figland case to Rapport on 10 October, 2023. Since then, I have written numerous memos which were distributed to federal, provincial, regional, district and municipal DA leaders familiar with the matter, as well as to the FLC chair, Breytenbach.

On 28 July, I wrote to Zille and Breytenbach to inform them that this article would be published and shared my conclusions. I copied the DA spokesperson, Newton. I invited their response before noon on 1 August. On 30 July, Newton informed me: “We do not respond to anonymous correspondents. Our silence in no way gives credence or co currency (sic) to these allegations.”

On 31 July, I invited Figland and Booysen to comment by 11am on 1 August. I had no reply.

♦ VWB ♦

BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION: Go to the bottom of this page to share your opinion. We look forward to hearing from you.