ActionSA has filed formal complaints with the Public Protector and Parliament’s ethics committee over claims that senior DA public representatives received monthly top-up payments from the party. The move puts fresh pressure on DA cabinet members and raises questions about whether the alleged payments were lawful and properly disclosed

The complaints follow allegations in a leaked internal report that the DA paid more than R305,000 a month in extra income to some of its senior representatives. Those named in the report include Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen, Deputy Finance Minister Ashor Sarupen, DA MP Mathew Cuthbert, National Assembly House Chair Werner Horn, Tshwane councillor Cilliers Brink, uMngeni mayor Christopher Pappas and DA chief whip George Michalakis.

Claims Focus on Cabinet Members and Party Roles

According to the leaked report, the alleged payments varied by role. Brink was listed as allegedly receiving R62,386 a month. Cuthbert and Sarupen were each listed at R50,000, while Horn was also listed at R50,000. Pappas was allegedly paid R44,609, Steenhuisen R39,560 and Michalakis R9,053. Reports say some of the remuneration was tied to duties carried out inside the party structure.

That is where the political and legal pressure starts building. ActionSA argues that if cabinet members were receiving extra pay linked to party work while serving in the executive, that could clash with section 96 of the Constitution, which bars members of the executive from doing other paid work.

ActionSA Says Taxpayers Deserve Answers

ActionSA MP Lerato Ngobeni said the allegations, if proven, would mean members of the executive were effectively being paid twice, once by taxpayers and again by their political party. She also raised concern that the alleged payments were not declared as extra remuneration or work in the Register of Members’ Interests.

Ngobeni further linked the issue to wider public anger over government spending, saying South Africans are already carrying the cost of ministers’ benefits and protection while being told to tighten their belts. ActionSA says its complaints are about enforcing the same ethical standard across the executive, regardless of party affiliation.

What Happens Next

The complaints now place the matter before two accountability channels: the Public Protector and Parliament’s ethics system. Whether the allegations are confirmed or dismissed, the case is likely to sharpen scrutiny on party funding, disclosure rules and the conduct of public office bearers inside the government of national unity.