John Steenhuisen: On The Record with Adriaan Basson | News24

First public interview after removal

John Steenhuisen, speaking to News24 in his first public interview since the DA removed him as Minister of Agriculture, argues that his dismissal was driven less by agricultural performance and more by:

• a broken promise,
• a sustained “narrative war” against him over foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), and
• a social-media-fueled campaign, which he claims was amplified by politically connected consultants and right-wing groups.

Key claims about his removal and the “word given”

Steenhuisen says the DA leader, Jordan (Lee) Lewis, promised that while he would step down as DA leader, he would remain as Agriculture Minister at least until he reached a goal of vaccinating 80% of cattle to combat FMD.

He also says:

• He portrayed his stance as duty-bound: he stepped down from leadership to focus full-time on FMD, but was then “pulled out of the portfolio” before the work was completed.
• He recounted the moment he learned of the removal: while on an overseas trip to India, Lewis’s office requested a meeting after landing. Lewis informed him that the change would happen, and Steenhuisen says they did not meaningfully speak afterward.

Why he says DA leadership acted: “lost political narrative” and “blood in the water”

Steenhuisen says Lewis told him his problem was that he “lost the political narrative” around FMD.

He argues that the attack became disproportionate and counterproductive, warning that firing ministers under pressure from a “banging mob” creates a precedent where future ministers will be punished similarly when they make hard decisions.

Alleged external campaign against him linked to FMD

Steenhuisen ties his political downfall to what he describes as a communications and media campaign around FMD:

• He says Resolve Communications (chaired by Tony Leon and led by CEO Paul Bouwer—both former DA leaders/executives) helped drive public narratives and criticism targeting him and his chief of staff.
• He claims he was surprised because Resolve had previously approached him as a minister to meet clients and discuss policy concerns.
• He also claims organized right-wing advocacy groups (he mentions SAAI, AfriForum, Sakeliga) ran a coordinated social-media campaign against him since he became agriculture minister, while he argues most of organized agriculture supported the policy direction.

Policy defense: vaccine strategy and private-sector involvement

To counter the narrative that government failed on FMD, Steenhuisen emphasizes:

• South Africa’s FMD outbreak had been ongoing since 2019, and his focus was on escalating control measures—especially vaccination at scale.
• He argues the vaccination approach was not improvised or implemented without industry input. Instead, he says he built consultation structures with the agricultural sector and private experts, including:
  • a ministerial task team with significant private-sector participation (private vets, epidemiologists, vaccinologists, academics),
  • an industry coordinating council made up of private sector organizations, and
  • diverse vaccine procurement and expanded distribution channels, citing industry capacity to help distribute vaccines.

DA leadership succession pressure and earlier plans to step down

Steenhuisen says internal DA pressure existed well before his removal:

• He claims there were DA discussions and meetings urging him to step down as party leader, particularly as his leadership tenure approached a long period.
• He says one incentive offered was continuing in the Agriculture portfolio while he focused on FMD.
• He argues the DA also had a pipeline of younger leaders he helped elevate (including via Western Cape political influence and candidate support), but he did not expect his current fate.

Chief-of-staff incidents he says became “viral”

Steenhuisen responds to claims that his dismissal was preceded by two controversies involving his chief of staff, Yamaleloo (Le Roux / Le Roux’s workplace is mentioned in the context):

1. An email from a farmer/organization (“FMD Response”) He says it “should never have happened,” and claims he instructed his chief of staff to publicly apologize and to apologize directly to FMD Response.

2. A reported braai incident at Nampo He says he did not witness or hear any profanity directed at someone, and claims it took weeks for the incident to surface. He says the staff involved denied swearing but acknowledged an animated discussion and said she would prefer direct contact.

He also alleges the online outrage was coordinated and included bot-style activity (accounts allegedly linked to overseas locations).

Broader political battle: coalition strategy vs right-wing pressure

Steenhuisen argues his problems also reflect ideological tensions inside the DA:

• He says the DA under his leadership aimed to grow beyond traditional white consolidation and win broader black, Indian, and coloured support—especially by signalling the party as part of solutions.
• He warns against “appeasing” right-wing constituencies or bending to the EFF “mega crew,” arguing that repeated capitulation dilutes liberal principles and harms growth.
• He suggests the DA is at risk of being repeatedly drawn into media/social-media-driven purges rather than policy-driven accountability.

Earlier spark he claims: White House “white genocide” dispute

He also links the hostility to an earlier challenge—at a White House meeting involving Donald Trump—against claims of “white genocide” in South Africa.

Steenhuisen says:

• He correctly rejected the premise as untrue and argued that South Africa’s real issues are rural safety and crime, not genocide.
• He claims right-wing narratives intensified immediately afterward on social media, with organized groups investing in that narrative.

Court case over FMD and his explanation for losing

In a dispute brought by Siza Kekana and Free State Agriculture (he says he lost), Steenhuisen argues:

• He pursued mediation, but the parties could not agree, and the law constrained what government could offer.
• He says claims about vaccine strategy are misleading because private sector and industry structures were integrated throughout the process.

Response to Grain SA chair Richard Kriegar’s claim he wasn’t “disconnected”

Steenhuisen agrees with accountability in principle but denies he was disengaged. He says:

• He spent extensive time in the field, including at Nampo for three days, interacting with producers and agriculture leadership.
• He cites on-the-ground engagement (including rural visits and community farmers) as central to his approach.

What he says he’ll do next

Steenhuisen says he is “down but not out” and committed to continue serving within the party where the leader assigns him (he mentions possible placement at DTRC).

He frames the dismissal as disappointing personally but not career-ending, saying he will rebuild and demonstrate critics wrong.

Presenters or contributors

• Adriaan Basson — interviewer (News24)
• John Steenhuisen — DA leader / former Minister of Agriculture