The Public Protector has confirmed receipt of a formal complaint lodged by former Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), Mr Dion Travers George, against Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen and current DFFE Minister Willie Aucamp, triggering a preliminary assessment into allegations of improper conduct at the highest level of government.
In correspondence dated January 8, 2026, the Office of the Public Protector acknowledged that the complaint, submitted through George’s attorneys, Gittins Attorneys Inc., is undergoing an assessment to determine whether it falls within the watchdog’s constitutional mandate.
The outcome of this assessment is expected within 10 working days.
According to the Public Protector, George’s complaint calls for an investigation into the conduct of Minister Aucamp, including “his failure to disclose his personal commercial interests and his conflict of interest, which constitutes a breach of the Executive Ethics Code.”
The complaint further raises concerns about policy and administrative decisions taken under Aucamp’s tenure, notably South Africa’s position at the recent Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
George alleges “the withdrawal of the protection of Abalone, known as Haliotis Midae, from the recent CITES summit,” which he claims occurred amid “unlawful interference” in the affairs of the DFFE.
Another key issue highlighted is the alleged failure by Minister Aucamp to renew the mandate of the Ministerial Task Team responsible for, among other things, implementing the phase-out of the captive lion breeding industry. The task team’s mandate expired at the end of November 2025.
In addition to Minister Aucamp, George’s complaint implicates DA political leader and Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen.
The Public Protector summarised the allegations as including “the unlawful interference in the mandate and function of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment,” George’s removal as minister, and Aucamp’s appointment, which George argues was inconsistent with the intent of the Government of National Unity.
The Office of the Public Protector has requested further clarification from George to determine whether certain communications cited in the complaint were made in the ministers’ official capacities or in their roles within the Democratic Alliance.
This distinction is critical, as the Constitutional Court has ruled that the Public Protector “does not have the power to investigate internal affairs of political parties,” limiting investigations to “state affairs and affairs of the public administration.”
Meanwhile, George’s legal team has mounted a separate challenge to a complaint reportedly lodged against him by Minister Aucamp, alleging possible abuse of state resources during George’s tenure.
In a strongly worded letter to the Public Protector, his attorneys argued that the complaint should be dismissed at the outset, stating that George “no longer holds any public office, exercises no public power, and has no authority over departmental resources.”
They further contended that any investigation into George would be incapable of yielding lawful remedial action and would amount to “retrospective political censure or reputational sanction untethered from corrective legal outcomes.”
Responding to requests for access to Aucamp’s complaint against George, the Public Protector cited section 7(2) of the Public Protector Act, which restricts disclosure of documents during an investigation.
“The Public Protector will not provide you with a copy of the complaint lodged by Mr Aucamp,” the office stated, adding that George would nevertheless be informed of the allegations to allow him an opportunity to respond.
The Public Protector emphasised that investigations are guided by “the principles of confidentiality, independence, impartiality and fairness,” warning that premature disclosure could undermine the integrity of the process.
At this stage, the Office of the Public Protector has not made any findings against Minister Aucamp or Minister Steenhuisen.
The matter remains at an assessment phase, after which a decision will be taken on whether a full investigation will proceed.
News
