Sport, Arts, and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie has been exonerated of accusations that he violated the Parliamentary Code of Conduct following a complaint lodged in July by a member of the public, Levona Steenkamp.
Allegations Against McKenzie
Steenkamp claimed that McKenzie used a live social media video to target and threaten her with legal action in connection to allegations about unfulfilled promises in Beaufort West. She accused McKenzie of abusing his ministerial position and inciting violence against her through his party members for opposing his political stance.
McKenzie’s Defense
McKenzie refuted the claims, asserting that the video was intended to address defamatory statements made about him on social media. He maintained that he acted in his personal capacity and did not mention Steenkamp by name. McKenzie argued that the complaint was baseless and an attempt to tarnish his reputation.
Committee Findings
The joint committee on ethics, led by co-chairpersons Lusizo Sharon Makhubela and Joseph Britz, found no evidence linking McKenzie’s comments to Steenkamp directly.
- The video did not contain derogatory, racist, or sexist language.
- McKenzie’s reference to unnamed individuals in Beaufort West or Laingsburg could not definitively identify Steenkamp.
- The committee ruled that McKenzie’s statement about summoning “patriots” to court was not an incitement to violence.
Related Complaint Against PA MP Ashley Sauls
Steenkamp also accused Patriotic Alliance MP Ashley Sauls of inciting violence and defamation during a live video. Sauls defended his actions, stating he was addressing alleged injustices that could lead to community members losing their jobs.
The committee cleared Sauls of misconduct, noting that his comments did not incite violence but aimed to advocate for the rights of community members.
Outcome
Both McKenzie and Sauls were found not to have contravened parliamentary codes. The committee concluded that neither video brought Parliament into disrepute nor promoted violence or hate speech.
These rulings mark a significant victory for McKenzie and Sauls, reinforcing their stance that the complaints were baseless attempts to discredit their reputations.
