Comment today from ministerial spokesperson Mr Sputnik Ratau - denying any ministerial interference in SANPark's decision to withdraw from a joint application with the City of Cape Town for an interdict to demolish any remaining unoccupied structures built on a firebreak in Hangberg - directly and unequivocally contradicts his previous statement on the matter, which confirmed that the Minister had indeed applied pressure on SANParks, in this regard.

Mr Ratau is spokesperson for Water and Environmental Affairs Minister, Buyelwa Sonjica.

Both statements cannot both be true. One of them is false.

Either the minister did apply pressure, or she did not. I shall be referring the matter to my colleague Gareth Morgan MP, the DA's shadow minister on environmental affairs, with a recommendation that the Minister be called to appear before the portfolio committee, to explain herself. The DA shall also be submitting parliamentary questions to the Minister to verify whether or not, in line with her spokesperson's comments, she was in communication with the head of SANParks and what the nature of that communication was. And, if her spokesperson misled the public, what action is being taken against him.

QUOTE 1: In this past Sunday's Rapport, Mr Ratau, is quoted as saying (translated from Afrikaans):

"The Minister is unhappy that SANParks is the first applicant in the request for an interdict because only a few structures are built on SANParks' ground. Because it is first and foremost a housing question - most structures and people are on a firebreak - this means the City should be the first applicant."

According to the story, Mr Ratau confirmed that this was convened to Mr David Mabunda, the head of SANParks, by the Minister and by SMS.

QUOTE 2: Yet, in today's Argus, Mr. Ratau denies any pressure was applied:

"The minister has not applied any political pressure on SANParks."

Well, which one is it?

The Argus story also reveals that provincial Cosatu leader Tony Ehrenreich admitted to trying to get the national government to intervene, in "the national interest". More like the ANC's interest.

The ANC government can obfuscate and bluster to its heart's content - the truth of the matter is it has quite clearly acted through the Minister to assert its own political agenda onto an issue it hopes will damage the DA's credibility. However, as always with the ANC, its own incompetence in carrying out its plans has resulted in that agenda being exposed, and the minister's spokesperson being made to look a fool.

On facts too, the Minister's obvious intervention is revealed to be political: SANParks has a clear obligation to protect the land for which it is responsible, not to do is to abdicate from its legislated responsibility in favour of some other political consideration.

This episode demonstrates the ANC at its worst: an organisation willing to manipulate public office to serve its warped agenda, and a willingness to mislead and misinform the public in doing so. There must be consequences for this. The DA will act to ensure that the public receives an explanation from the Minister.