Hill-Lewis praises export gains, but insiders say FMD crisis and arrogant leadership style prompted move to trade deputy role.
John Steenhuisen’s removal as minister of agriculture may have been decided months before Tuesday’s Cabinet reshuffle, according to DA insiders.
Sources said discussions about redeploying Steenhuisen began shortly after Geordin Hill-Lewis succeeded him as DA leader two months ago.
DA sources reveal redeployment planned for months
Tuesday’s reshuffle, which saw Steenhuisen redeployed as deputy minister of trade, industry and competition, followed an assessment of his performance and formed part of Hill-Lewis’s plans for the party’s government of national unity (GNU) team, according to a source.
Hill-Lewis moved Willie Aucamp from the environment to the agriculture portfolio.
“The reshuffle was part of Geordin’s thinking when he took over,” said the source.
Hill-Lewis praised Steenhuisen’s record, saying he had expanded export market access and made progress on vaccine procurement during the footand-mouth disease (FMD) crisis.
However, insiders suggested Hill-Lewis’ assessment focused less on electoral history and more on current performance within government and the GNU.
Political analyst Prof Theo Neethling said the move was “pure DA damage control”.
Redeploying Steenhuisen seen as pure damage control
He said the DA may be trying to repair relationships damaged during the FMD debacle.
“The irony is that they thought Steenhuisen would help bring farmers over to the DA. It ended up having the opposite effect.”
Political commentator Gareth van Onselen, who analysed the DA’s previous electoral performances, said on X that Steenhuisen had been central to the party’s growth.
Referring to the 2024 election result, Van Onselen said the DA’s support had increased from 20.77% in 2019 to 21.81% in 2024, adding that the party had achieved “its best absolute result” yet under Steenhuisen’s leadership, while significantly reducing Freedom Front Plus support.
Despite the praise, not everyone in the DA shared this view.
Several insiders described growing frustration with Steenhuisen’s leadership style and handling of the agriculture portfolio.
Steenhuisen’s leadership style ‘distant from colleagues’
One source described Steenhuisen’s leadership style as “distant from colleagues”, while another characterised it as “arrogant”.
Another suggested the pressure of government and party leadership had begun taking its toll. “Maybe it was a defence mechanism. But people felt he stopped listening.”
A third DA public representative described the mood within the DA since Hill-Lewis’ election as leader as one of “electionitis”, with senior figures increasingly aware that positions could no longer be taken for granted.
“People are walking on eggshells. Nobody feels untouchable any more.”
Neethling said Steenhuisen’s difficulties in agriculture had become apparent months ago.
“I was actually expecting him to be removed eventually. For me, it was only a matter of time,” he said.
FMD handling slammed
Neethling suggested Steenhuisen’s handling of the FMD crisis alienated many farmers and agricultural organisations.
“What cost him was his insistence on handling the foot-andmouth disease crisis in a highly state-controlled way,” he said.
Neethling said many in the sector believed private facilities could have assisted government in managing vaccines and disease control measures.
“What many people couldn’t understand was that the DA traditionally champions solutions outside the state. Yet, here was a DA minister taking an extremely state-centric approach,” he said.
Agricultural lobbyist and long-time Steenhuisen critic Theo de Jager posted on X that moving a Cabinet minister to a deputy minister position raised obvious questions about performance.
He also welcomed the appointment of Aucamp.