South Africa has become remarkably good at recognising state capture only after the damage has been done. We know what it looks like when private interests gain privileged access to public power. We know how institutional decline begins; not always with blatant corruption, but with blurred boundaries between politics, business and policymaking. Above all, we know how quickly public trust erodes when citizens believe decisions are being shaped behind closed doors rather than in the national interest.
Deeper weakness in governance framework
That is why the controversy surrounding former Democratic Alliance leader Tony Leon, Resolve Communications and Starlink deserves far more than partisan political debate. Whatever the outcome of the allegations, the episode has exposed a deeper weakness in South Africa’s governance framework: there is still no meaningful system that allows citizens to see who is influencing public policy, on whose behalf, and through what channels.
The allegations centre on claims that Resolve Communications facilitated engagements between private-sector clients and government leaders, including Communications Minister Solly Malatsi, regarding Starlink’s ambitions to enter the South African market. Leon, Resolve Communications and Malatsi have all denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the engagements formed part of legitimate public affairs and stakeholder engagement.
Those denials deserve to be respected. Allegations are not evidence, and democratic societies depend on due process rather than public speculation. Yet governance is measured by more than legality. It is measured by legitimacy. Citizens must have confidence that public policy is developed transparently, fairly and without privileged access for those with political proximity or commercial influence. Lobbying itself is not the problem. Every mature democracy relies on engagement between government, business, labour and civil society. Companies require regulatory certainty. Industry bodies provide technical expertise.
Communications consultancies facilitate dialogue between stakeholders and policymakers. The problem arises when influence appears to become exclusive rather than transparent. This is why the Democratic Alliance finds itself confronting one of the most significant reputational tests in its history.
For years the DA has positioned itself as South Africa’s leading advocate for constitutional governance, accountability and ethical leadership. It was among the strongest voices against state capture and played a prominent role in exposing Bell Pottinger for its unethical campaign on behalf of the Gupta family. That history creates a higher standard. The party cannot demand transparency from others while appearing reluctant to embrace the same standard when questions arise closer to home.
DA’s handling of the controversy
Federal Chairperson Solly Msimanga strongly denied claims that he was ever lobbied by Resolve Communications while serving as Executive Mayor of Tshwane, pointing to visitor registers and official records as evidence that no such meetings occurred. Those denials are legitimate and deserve consideration. Yet almost simultaneously, Msimanga announced that the DA’s Federal Executive would consider investigating whether the allegations had brought the party into disrepute, insisting that the DA “investigates” rather than “sweeps things under the carpet”.
From a reputation management perspective, this is where the party’s communication begins to unravel.
If there is nothing to investigate, why announce an investigation? If there is sufficient concern to warrant one, why dismiss the allegations before the process has even begun? Effective crisis communication depends on consistency. Institutions lose credibility when different leaders appear to advance different narratives. What should have been a coordinated response has instead become a series of individual denials, explanations and reactive statements, creating uncertainty where clarity was required.
Controversy has also grown beyond Starlink
Former Environment Minister Dion George has publicly stated that Resolve sought meetings relating to REDISA—the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa—while the organisation was engaged in litigation with his department. Resolve has denied any impropriety. Former Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille has also described previous engagements involving Resolve in relation to Uber and the City’s drought communications campaign. None of these matters amounts to proof of wrongdoing. Together, however, they raise broader questions about the intersection of political access, commercial interests and public affairs.
ActionSA has since lodged a complaint with the Public Protector, calling for independent investigations and describing the allegations as resembling “state capture-style” conduct. The debate escalated further when President Cyril Ramaphosa remarked that the allegations “really smack of the type of state capture” South Africans had previously condemned, adding that “the truth will still need to come out”.
Whether one agrees with the President’s characterisation is almost beside the point. His intervention reflects the seriousness with which these allegations are now being viewed. The issue is no longer simply about one communications consultancy. It is about the integrity of policymaking itself. This is where comparisons with Bell Pottinger require careful nuance. The comparison is not that the conduct is the same. Bell Pottinger orchestrated a disinformation campaign that fuelled racial division in defence of the Gupta family’s interests. There is no evidence of equivalent conduct in the present matter. The similarity lies elsewhere.
Both controversies raise uncomfortable questions about how sophisticated communications and public affairs firms can operate at the intersection of political influence and private commercial interests. The lesson of Bell Pottinger was not simply about propaganda. It was about the commercialisation of influence.
South Africa has still not addressed that vulnerability.
Unlike many established democracies, we have no comprehensive lobbying register, no routine disclosure of meetings between lobbyists and ministers, and few safeguards governing the movement of senior political figures into public affairs and government relations. That absence of transparency serves no one.
It leaves governments vulnerable to allegations of undue influence, businesses exposed to accusations of political favouritism, communications professionals unfairly viewed with suspicion, and citizens uncertain about whether public policy is being shaped in the national interest.
Regulating lobbying
The solution is not to criminalise lobbying. It is to regulate it through disclosure, transparency and independent oversight. Ultimately, this controversy is about far more than Tony Leon or Starlink. It asks whether South Africa has learned enough from state capture to recognise that the next threat to democratic integrity may not arrive carrying bags of cash. It may arrive wearing a business suit, speaking the language of stakeholder engagement and operating through relationships that remain largely invisible to the public.
The lesson of state capture was never simply that corruption is dangerous. It was that opacity is dangerous.
South Africa’s democracy depends not only on ensuring that influence is exercised lawfully, but that it is seen to be exercised openly, transparently and in the public interest. That is a standard every political party should be prepared to uphold, especially one that has built its reputation demanding exactly that from others.
- Matseba is the Managing Director at Reputation 1st Group, and former President of the Public Relations Institute of Southern Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.
- South Africa lacks a transparent system to disclose who influences public policy, raising concerns over private interests gaining undue access to government officials.
- Allegations involving Tony Leon, Resolve Communications, and Starlink highlight issues of blurred lines between politics, business, and policymaking without clear evidence of wrongdoing.
- The Democratic Alliance faces reputational challenges for inconsistent responses to the controversy, undermining its stance on transparency and ethical governance.
- The controversy has expanded to include other cases involving political access and commercial interests, prompting calls for independent investigations and comparisons to past state capture incidents.
- Experts advocate for regulating lobbying through disclosure and transparency, stressing that South Africa’s democracy depends on openness to prevent undue influence and protect public trust.
