Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille had until 3pm on Wednesday to submit reasons why the decision to remove her from her position as mayor should not be carried through by the Democratic Alliance Federal Executive. Patricia de Lille proceeded on Wednesday to file representations with her own party's highest office as she sought to save her job.
Last week‚ the DA's caucus in the City of Cape Town effectively ousted De Lille in a vote of no confidence - but the decision needed to be ratified by the party's federal executive before it took effect. This followed after the party implemented a clause that‚ essentially‚ allowed it to remove office bearers internally.

It appears as if she has little hope for an outcome in her favour.
Patricia de Lille indicated in last week that she is ready to take her fight to the next level and it now clearly seems like the courts is where it will be heading.
The DA may have just painted themselves into a neat little corner.

With all of Aunty Patty's flaws and the love-hate affair some Capetonians have with her, Cape Town voters will not easily accept whoever the DA tries to put up as the new mayor and the DA also cannot afford to have De Lille on the outside as a member of another party as she has more than enough ammo to fight against them in an election.
On the other hand, should the DA FedEx decide to overrule the "recall" and retain her as mayor, they will in effect be admitting to the string of allegations of DA corruption which have surfaced as they were trying to tar and feather De Lille, .
Politically the DA is caught between a rock and a hard place. They are dammed if they let her go and they are dammed if they keep her and confirm that they are internally corrupt.

Here is her full‚ unedited‚ letter to the DA's federal executive:
Mr James Selfe Chairperson of the Federal Executive Democratic Alliance
Dear Federal Executive Chairperson and Federal Executive Members

1. I write to you in response to your letter‚ dated 26 April 2018 and received on the same date‚ requesting me to make written representations regarding why I should not have to resign as the Executive Mayor of the City of Cape Town. This letter is sent pursuant to the implementation of the recall clause ( against me. Unnamed‚ unspecified allegations

2. The Motion of No Confidence passed in me on 25 April 2018‚ originally proposed by Cllr Angus McKenize and seconded by Cllr Phindile Maxiti‚ has reference. I do not believe that the Federal Executive (FedEx) properly considered and interrogated the reasons for this Motion of No Confidence‚ before allowing the local caucus to proceed therewith. The reasons listed to motivate my removal lack detail such as the name of the complainant‚ or specific examples of transgressions with dates. Had the matter been properly considered‚ surely FedEx would have wanted to know more details‚ in order to assess the seriousness of the allegations of transgressions as well as the dates of the transgressions in order to ensure that there is not an attempt to apply the clause retroactively?

3. As it turned out‚ I was (and am) accused of breaching unnamed and unspecified caucus confidentiality‚ unspecified provisions of the Code of Conduct for Councillors as well as unspecified conditions of my suspension. Neither the conduct nor the relevant provisions of the respective codes are specified. In fact‚ during the caucus sitting I asked for examples of how I had breached these rules‚ and no examples have been forthcoming. In the circumstances‚ all I can do‚ and for the reasons set out in my earlier press statement dated 5 April 2018 (copy annexed‚ marked “A”) is dispute that I have breached any of the above.

4. The one specific allegation which is listed‚ regarding me interfering in a City of Cape Town recruitment process‚ has been proven to be unfounded. A confidential report on this matter was tabled at Council last week as required by regulation 5 of the disciplinary regulations for Senior Management. This was an independent investigation and I was completely exonerated. More details can be provided if requested.

Media statements
5. It is alleged that I have made “numerous media statements” bringing the party into disrepute. My response is that every single statement I made was in defence of attacks made on me by Party members and leadership. I only responded to comments and statements by other DA party members‚ and I have right to defend myself against those wishing to tarnish my reputation and my integrity.

6. This “charge” is bizarre given that the Party has launched an aggressive media campaign against me. See The information on the Party’s website is one sided and misleading and in some instances‚ outright false.

7. The campaign is running whilst the local caucus and FedEx is supposedly considering‚ neutrally and dispassionately‚ my representations on why I should not be asked to resign as Mayor!

Retrospective application
8. It is alleged that my behavior follows months during which I have criticized the DA and its management. In this regard‚ I refer to my press statement in which I set out my response. In any event‚ I am advised that the recall clause cannot be applied retrospectively.

No fair opportunity to respond in Caucus
9. As far as what transpired at the caucus sitting on 25 April 2018‚ I wish to place the following on record:

9.1 I tried to respond to the false and vague allegations listed above. A number of examples raised were allegations before the clause was adopted‚ when it has been expressly stated that it cannot be applied retrospectively. I reminded the Chair that comments and/and or actions which may or may not have taken place before the Federal Congress when the Recall Clause was adopted‚ are not applicable to the Motion at hand‚ but the Chairperson allowed this to continue.

9.2 At the end of the caucus I asked the Chair for the opportunity to respond to these false allegations‚ but I was denied such. I even appealed to Mr Thomas Walters‚ who was the member of the Federal Executive present‚ to intervene with the Chair in order to grant me this opportunity but this was also denied.

9.3 Furthermore‚ I asked councilors whether they discussed the matter with the communities and consulted with them‚ because they are meant to be representing their wards in the caucus. I received no response to this.

9.4 I also reminded them of the number of successes that we have achieved since 2011 as a team. The list that I shared verbally with them has been attached as Annexure B. These successes were achieved in keeping with the Redress‚ Reconciliation‚ Diversity and Delivery model‚ and they are tangible examples of my commitment to delivering on the political promises that have been made under the banner of the DA.

Perception of bias
10. I would like to request that the following members of the Federal Executive should recuse themselves for the clear bias that they have displayed publically:

10.1 Mr Mmusi Maimane – For publically stating that I am running away from accountability. See Annexure C. He has also misrepresented the ANC’s Constitution to the public.

10.2 Natasha Mazzone – Comments made by her on an eNCA interview conducted on 26 April‚ wherein she made the allegation that I have failed in my duties as the Mayor. See Annexure D

10.3 Mike Walters – Content shared on his Facebook accusing me of corruption. See Annexure E.

10.4 Bonginkosi Madikizela – Comments made by him on an eNCA interview conducted on 18 April 2018‚ wherein he says I am facing serious charges and that I do not have to be found guilty because this is a political decision. See Annexure F.
10.5 James Selfe – A hostile statement issued on 6 April accusing me of trying to gain public sympathy and sarcastically claiming that I know where to find the High Court. See Annexure G. Also‚ in Case No: 2153/18‚ relating to the motion of no confidence procedure‚ the presiding Judge found Selfe’s explanation of certain events in litigation brought by me against the Party as “strange”; his claim of ignorance on another aspect “astonishing” and that the Court held that he knew or must have known better. See De Lille v Democratic Alliance and Others (2153/18) [2018] ZAWCHC 22 (14 February 2018)‚ available on Saflii. Quite clearly‚ when a Judge of the High Court goes as far as making this statement against a Party official‚ he disqualifies himself from further participation of the relevant subject matter.
Previous representations
11. I also ask that my previous representations‚ submitted on 5 January 2018 be taken into account‚ including my achievements listed in those representations and demonstrated by the annexures thereto. At that stage‚ FedEx decided that a motion of no confidence in me should not be supported and the ordinary disciplinary process should follow its course.

12. Nothing much has changed since then.

13. No significant new charges have emerged which have not been comprehensively answered and there is no reason for FedEx to change its mind.

Further conduct
14. As you may understand‚ given the circumstances‚ I have little faith in a positive result. The Party is going through the motions in my view in order to implement its new recall clause.

15. An adverse decision will be challenged in Court. Please communicate the outcome to me and my attorney‚ Mr John Riley at John Riley This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Any attempt to communicate the decision in manner or at a time which will make it more difficult for me to obtain urgent relief will be pertinently pointed out to the duty Judge. This will for instance be the case if the decision is communicated late on a Friday or over the course of the weekend.

16. Please also consider whether the Party will be agreeable to an approach to Court on a short timetable for clarity on the constitutional validity on the recall clause.

17. I shall assume that Court papers may be email to Mr Selfe and to the Party’s attorneys‚ Ms Elzanne Jonker of the firm‚ Minde Schapiro & Smith Inc.

Regards‚ Patricia De Lille