The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has thrown its weight behind the Democratic Alliance’s (DA) court challenge to the appointment and salary adjustment for Xolile George as secretary to Parliament, saying the Western Cape High Court should set the appointment aside and recover the funds paid to him.
EFF MP Omphile Maotwe told reporters the party was confident the court would rule in the DA’s favour. She said those who authorised the appointment and the subsequent increase in remuneration should be made to return the money to the public purse.
"Those who approved the appointment must pay back the money,"
The DA launched court proceedings contesting the legality of George’s appointment and the salary hike. The matter is scheduled to be considered in the Western Cape High Court, where the party seeks a judicial review and setting-aside of the administrative decision that confirmed his appointment.
Why the case matters
The role of secretary to Parliament is central to the functioning of the legislative branch: the post carries administrative authority over parliamentary services and is closely tied to the institution’s governance and use of public funds. Legal challenges to such appointments typically turn on whether proper procedures were followed, whether decision-makers acted within their powers, and whether the public interest was protected.
If the court were to order the appointment set aside, practical consequences could include a re-opening of the recruitment or appointment process and potential recovery of remuneration paid under the contested decision. The EFF’s public demand for repayment frames the issue as one of accountability for public funds.
Positions and stakeholders
At present the positions are clear but contested:
- DA — has initiated litigation seeking to overturn the appointment and salary decision.
- EFF — supports the DA’s challenge and calls for reimbursement of funds.
- Parliament — as employer and appointing institution, it faces scrutiny over its processes and decisions.
- Xolile George — as the appointee, his position is subject to the court’s determination.
| Stakeholder | Public stance |
|---|---|
| DA | Challenging appointment and salary increase in court |
| EFF | Supports DA challenge; demands repayment |
| Parliament | Defending its administrative decisions (position under litigation) |
The source reporting this week quoted EFF representatives making clear the party’s expectations of a favourable judgment from the Western Cape High Court. Beyond rhetoric, a judicial finding against the appointment would compel Parliament to respond institutionally and administratively.
Legal and governance implications for the Western Cape
Although the matter concerns the national legislature, its hearing in the Western Cape High Court places the case within the province’s legal calendar and courts. High-profile disputes over public appointments adjudicated in this jurisdiction have the potential to set administrative-law precedents affecting how public bodies nationally make senior appointments.
Court determinations on procedural fairness, compliance with recruitment rules, and the reasonableness of administrative choices can clarify obligations for other state institutions and strengthen oversight mechanisms. They can also prompt tighter internal controls in Parliament if shortcomings are identified.
What to expect next
At this stage the contest remains in the legal arena. The Western Cape High Court will consider the DA’s application and the arguments advanced by parties including any representations from Parliament and Mr George. If the court finds in the DA’s favour it may annul the appointment or set aside the salary decision; it could also order further remedial steps. The EFF’s public call for repayment signals an intent to press for financial remedies if procedural defects are found.
The unfolding litigation underscores continued parliamentary scrutiny from opposition parties and civil-society actors, and will be watched closely by those concerned about governance, transparency and stewardship of public monies.
Reporting on subsequent hearings and any court orders will clarify whether the EFF’s demand for repayment will be pursued as part of court-ordered remedies or through separate administrative or recovery processes.
