7 Wale Stret

Cape Town
6 June 2017.

Mr James Selfe
Chairman, Federal Executive

Dear James

I refer to your letter to me dated 3 June 2017, and respond as follows:

Re: PROCEDURAL ISSUES

1. In our leaders statement on the same date, he announced that the Fedex had taken
a decision to suspend me. This contradicted the contents of your letter to me, which
gave me until 6 June to respond to the notice of Fedexs intention to suspend me.
When I pointed this out, the announcement by our leader was amended to say I
would be given 72 hours to respond, and that I had NOT in fact been suspended. It is
clear, however, that he has pre-judged and taken a decision to suspend me.

2. On 4 June the Sunday Times reported that the entire Fedex had already voted on this
issue and hence pre-judged it. Upon checking this matter with individual members
of Fedex it was confirmed that the vote was on whether I should be suspended, not
whether I should be given 72 hours to give reasons why I should not be suspended.
In addition, I am advised that there was no proper time given to properly discuss this
matter, and that the usual procedures were not followed. It would seem that the
discussion was rushed to fit in with the timing of the press conference, and that a
pre-prepared press statement was ready, indicating that the discussion at the
meeting was a mere formality before making the announcement at the press
conference.

3. This initial material failure to comply with due process has serious implications. The
leader has, in a public statement, made it clear that he wants me suspended and has
already decided to suspend me. This puts the Fedex in an impossible position to
make an objective determination, whatever the merits of my arguments against
suspension. In any event, Fedex has equally compromised itself on this decision.

4. Even if the Fedex were to support my arguments (set out below), on their merits,
they will be aware that this will be seen as a public repudiation of the leaderships
wishes, which they will probably seek to avoid. The failure to observe due
constitutional process in terms of section 3.6.3 of the DA constitution, has rendered
the exercise of my right to representation hollow, as there is little chance of the DA
Fedex publicly embarrassing the leader through being influenced by the legality of
my submission, no matter how cogent it is.

1
5. You, in your capacity as chairperson of the Federal Executive, have stated publicly
that clause 3.6.3 of the Federal Constitution refers to Termination or Suspension of
Membership. However, a reading of clause 3.6.3 unambiguously refers to the
substance of the decision that the Fedex took relating to me. It is therefore of direct
relevance to this submission, and you cannot rely on the headline of the section to
nullify its applicability. The fact that you appear to have done so compounds the
unlawfulness of the decision to suspend me.

6. There is even further evidence that the offer of 72 hours to submit reasons for why I
should not be suspended is a sham. A report that appeared on the News24 website
reads: Shortly after [the leaders initial announcement], the DA released a
statement saying that Zille had in fact been given 72 hours to make representations,
but members of the federal executive told City Press that the notice was a mere
technicality as the meeting had already resolved to suspend her. Given this,
together with the report in the Sunday Times where the votes of actual Fedex
members vis-a-vis a decision to suspend are listed; and that the DA has not denied or
repudiated these reports, it is reasonable to assume their contents are true and
render any decision on this matter by the Fedex reviewable for this reason alone.

7. The above amount to serious breaches of the partys constitution, which is not the
first time this has occurred in respect of the Partys dealings with me in this matter.
Given these facts, I am entitled to question whether there is any chance that the
current Fedex is going to apply its mind objectively to the question of whether to
suspend me, on the basis of this submission.

8. For the sake of completeness, I repeat here that the Fedex has violated our
constitution before, by rejecting out of hand the MANDATORY requirement for
mediation in my matter. Given that so many black South Africans have expressed
exactly the same views on the legacy of colonialism as I have (only in more forceful
terms) and given that the DA has never raised any concerns about these views, let
alone repudiated them, and has no written policy on the matter, I drew the
conclusion that a contributing reason to my being charged is the fact that I am not
black. Other events of the past few months have led me and others to the
conclusion that, in certain instances, DA members are treated differentially on the
basis of race. This interpretation was given further credence by the approach to two
other disciplinary cases, one involving the social media post of a white member of
the DA, and the other involving social media posts of a black member of the DA. This
latest suspension decision merely reinforces the perception of unequal treatment.

9. In these circumstances I am of the view that the entire process that you have now
asked me to engage in, is both contrary to our constitution and a sham. I have also
been alerted to the fact that there is an orchestrated campaign by insiders to
accuse me publicly of obstructing the direction set by the current leadership,
complemented by a public campaign involving a network of individuals to call on me
to resign. This is a concerted effort to divert attention from the real cause of the
problems the party is facing.

2
 10. In order to avoid this myth being perpetuated, and despite the procedural flaws and
constitutional violations already committed in this matter, I hereby provide reasons
as to why I should not be suspended from participating in the party structures and
activities where I currently serve, pending the final determination of the charges I
am facing.

B Re: Grounds for intention to suspend

11. In your letter, you refer to four factors that have been taken into account in Fedexs
decision.

12. The first and third focus on the alleged seriousness of the matter, and the need for
the Party to demonstrate this. In response to this aspect I submit that although I
believe that the situation in which the DA finds itself over this matter is extremely
serious, I do not believe that the charges justify the need to suspend me summarily
or subvert our Constitution to the extent that Fedex has already done. Indeed, this
will only compound the seriousness of the matter for the party. On the face of it,
and based on other correspondence received, the motivation to suspend me now
seems to be based more on a sense of vindictiveness because I have resisted
attempts to make me accept a guilty verdict and a punishment -- before a hearing
even takes place.

13. The question arises as to why Fedex did not suspend me when it decided to charge
me. If there was a need to suspend me, based on the seriousness of the charges,
this matter would have arisen far earlier, on 2 April, when Fedex took the decision to
charge me. Its failure to do so was not an oversight. It is important for Fedex to
note an interview given by James Selfe and published in the Cape Argus on 4 April
2017 which read:
Selfe also rubbished criticism Zille should have been suspended pending the
outcome of the disciplinary process, saying people in the DA are only suspended if
there is a realistic prospect that they will interfere with an investigation or interfere
with witnesses. Neither of these apply in respect of Ms Zille.

14. I have not sought to interfere with the investigation or interfere with witnesses,
neither would I do so. I do not know who any prospective witnesses are. So, unless
the chairman of the Fedex can prove otherwise, it would be irrational for Fedex to
now resolve to suspend me. I contend that nothing has changed since Mr Selfes
public statement above, which means that the proposed suspension must be
motivated by other factors, on which I elaborate below, and which would be entirely
unlawful.

15. The contention that a different set of criteria will apply now because it is a
suspension from party structures holds no water either legally or rationally.

16. The second reason that has been given by you is the ongoing harm to the Partys
reputation caused by this issue until it is resolved. The ongoing damage to the

3
 party in this matter is of its own doing. My original tweets, in a conversation about
lessons from Singapore, were not in any way intended to harm the party, nor in any
objective reading of them, could they be interpreted as doing so. It was the
subsequent misinterpretation of my tweets as defending, glorifying or
justifying colonialism that caused the damage. All I have done is try to correct
these mis-statements and distortions. I am not the one who has held press
conferences and made speeches, or statements, or continuously leaked
misinformation to the media.

17. When I received the leaders letter asking me to desist from public comment, I
agreed to do so subject to maintaining my constitutional right not to be defamed
and misrepresented, as I have been consistently.. I also undertook to send drafts
of what I intended to publish relating to this matter to you, or the leader, and that if
my submissions were vetoed for publication, I requested the DA to correct factual
inaccuracies, distortions and defamatory statements against me.

18. I have upheld my undertaking. The Sunday Times article replying to Prof Ngwemas
attack on me was submitted to the leaders office, and amended on the advice of the
leaders chief of staff before publication. (This is consistent with the way I have
always interacted with the leaders office). The Daily Maverick column on the
implications of the recent SRC elections at UCT, was approved by the leader himself;
and my letter to the Times was approved by you. I substantially changed the text of
my Colin Eglin Memorial Lecture to comply with the leaders directive, and I turned
down an interview request with HARDtalk because they wished to discuss the issue.
I also declined an interview with Justice Malala, and with a current affairs radio
show. Thus I have sought to abide by the partys request to me, following my receipt
of it. I obviously had to also defend myself in the Provincial Legislature, as the
Speaker allowed a debate requested by the ANC on this issue. I could not avoid
doing so, nor could I continue to allow misrepresentations of what I had actually said
to be perpetuated without being able to respond.

19. As the Fedex will know, I have been defamed repeatedly in respect of the matters
before the Fedex over the past weeks, without responding, and therefore it is not
correct to assert that I have harmed the party. In fact, it is extremely prejudicial to
me that other prominent members of the party continue to speak out on the matter,
thus harming the party and myself, while I am prevented from doing so. Indeed, it
has now got to the point where it is taking on the dimensions of an organised
campaign.

20. There have been several attempts over the last few weeks to force me to resign
immediately, before a hearing takes place. Now that I have made it quite clear that I
will not, and after the Party has delayed for over a month in giving me the further
particulars that I requested to prepare my case, the Fedex has decided to suspend
me. I regard this as a form of punishment for my insistence that we follow due
process, and the decision is hence unlawful.

4
21. The formal attempts to resolve the matter that you refer to, have all involved the
condition that I resign as Premier, or plead guilty to an offence through apologizing
for offences I did not commit, which would open the way for my expulsion from the
party. It would also have serious implications for two other litigation processes that
my office is currently engaged in opposing. I clearly cannot be expected to
incriminate myself in that way, especially in the light of the precedent set by the
party in a previous case.

22. I have done nothing to breach my oath of office as Premier that warrants my
resignation or removal from this office. Hence, I regard the attempts to resolve
the matter on that basis as not being bona fide efforts to do so. They were attempts
to punish me without a hearing, after the leader had pronounced on my guilt in
advance in public.

23. In fact, the actions and recent statements, including those by the Fedex, raise
questions as to whether it is possible for me to have a fair hearing at all within the
party, and I reserve my rights in this regard.

24. In addition, it is clear that until such time as the party stops the leakage of
misinformation to the media about my actions in this matter, I do not believe that
my suspension from Party activities will, in any way, prevent further damage to the
Party resulting from this issue. In fact, I believe the contrary to be true. I submit that
it could be severely prejudicial because as Premier of the province, I have to be able
to caucus with my colleagues in the Western Cape, and a failure to do so could result
in embarrassment to the Party in the legislature and would severely retard my ability
to lead the Western Cape government successfully in the build up to the next
elections. In addition, the successes that we have achieved in the province provide
an excellent platform for our 2019 campaign. Excluding me from sharing this within
the party and the public will in fact have a negative effect on the partys
performance in 2019.

25. Responding to reports that the delay in the process has been due to me, it is
important to place on record that the reason for the delay is a result of the Party not
furnishing my legal representatives with the particulars I requested over a month
ago. I am thus being doubly prejudiced, in that I have not been able to defend
myself, and now my rights as a member of the Party are being taken away.

26. The Leader was recently reported in the media as intending to block me from
standing for provincial leader in the Western Cape. I denied any intention to stand
at the provincial congress in September, but the fact remains that it is not within the
leaders rights to punish me in this manner, and allegedly with this motive, before
the disciplinary process is finalized. Any ulterior motive of this kind (ie to prevent
me contesting a leadership position) would make the decision challengeable on this
basis too.

27. It is quite clear that other factors, rather than the reasons stated, have motivated
this Fedex decision to suspend me. These other reasons include a statement by the

5
 Leader on 4 May that It has become quite evident that Helen Zille and I hold
fundamentally different attitudes about the mission the Democratic Alliance needs to
accomplish in 2019, and the goals and priorities that flow from this.

28. This conclusion could only have been drawn from a frank discussion initiated by the
Leader with me, and held on 18 May, which we agreed, beforehand, was off the record
and without prejudice. This discussion was held in the presence of my legal adviser. By
using this discussion as a reason to now suspend me, means he has ignored these
express legal provisos. The real irony is that these are the kinds of discussions that
SHOULD be the substance of debate in a political party. If a person can be suspended
for simply expressing a different view, in confidential conversations, to that of the
leader, the DA is on a slippery slope, and no longer represents or upholds the values of
freedom, fairness and opportunity. The consequences of this are dire in a political party.
If the perception (or even reality) of a difference of opinion can be used to suspend me,
then we will shut down debate in the DA. No-one else will feel free to express a
contrary opinion to that of the leader, or if they do, they stand the risk of the same thing
happening to them. This is a fundamental conflict with the principles and values
enshrined in the DA Constitution.

29. I refer now to the motion adopted by the Western Cape Provincial Council. You
mention this motion as one of the reasons that the Fedex resolved to suspend me.
Firstly, the motion was supported by motivations from Bonginkosi Madikizela, the
interim Provincial Leader, and Debbie Schafer. Why are you only referring to the
latter? The motion was had two proposers and three seconders: Basil Kivedo,
Masizole Mnqasela and Ivan Meyer. It was drafted by Ivan Meyer, who also serves
on Fedex. Furthermore, the motion was unanimously adopted at the Provincial
Council. There was not one dissenting voice, despite the fact that there were several
Fedex members present, including yourself.

30. It appears that in this respect too, the Fedex is of the view that I am somehow the
author of the motion. This is not true and is in fact an insult to the members of the
Western Cape Provincial Council who brought and deliberated the motion.

31. I wish to state that I had nothing to do with this motion (although I would have been
perfectly entitled to if I had so wished). I did not propose it, draft it or motivate it.
The idea emerged spontaneously from some of my colleagues, without input from
me, and received strong endorsement. You state in your letter that It is plain from
that motion and its motivation that it directly or indirectly relates to the issues
raised by your [my] conduct and disciplinary proceedings.
I am not sure what thought processes could possibly lead to a connection between
my disciplinary proceedings, which relate to my tweets about the lessons I learnt in
Singapore, and this motion. Nothing in the motion, nor in its supporting
motivations, relate to the issues surrounding my disciplinary at all. In my view this
conclusion is thus illogical and incorrect and does not provide a rational basis for
suspending me.

32. A response provided by you to an interview on 5 June with Eusebius McKaiser, you
said a motivation for the suspension was to prevent me from stirring things up.

6
 This would appear to be an accurate explanation for the decision to suspend me, and
would be unlawful, as you yourself conceded later in the interview.

33. Your earlier comment that It is important that there be no suggestion that your
participation in party structures has given rise to the motion or will affect its
outcome, is telling. What you, in fact, are saying is that you are concerned that the
people who proposed and motivated this motion, have the same views that I do, and
need to be separated from me in order to ensure that they will fall in line with the
Leader. This is an implied insult to these members suggesting they could not have
proposed this motion on their own, and that it must have been a result of instigation
by me -- an assumption which is devoid of all truth. It also shows how Fedex is
trying to clamp down on any dissenting voice in the Party, while using me as a
scapegoat.

Re: My Apology

34. Even though this is not in your letter, the Leader, in his widely quoted statement on
the reason he gives for my suspension, says that one of the reasons for the decision
to suspend me was because I declined to apologise unreservedly to South Africa and
the DA for the damage I have done. This statement too does not accurately reflect
the situation.

35. On the morning that the tweets were sent (16 March 2017), I received a phone call
from the Leaders chief of staff about my series of tweets on the lessons I had learnt
in Singapore. I was taken aback when Geordin said they were being read as a
justification and defence of colonialism (which any objective reading will show they
were not). Indeed, they were precisely the opposite, premised on the conclusion
that colonialism and its legacy were primarily negative, but not ONLY negative. That
view is shared by almost every serious historian on the subject.

36. I intend to demonstrate at my disciplinary hearing how this distortion of my tweets

occurred, and the process which drove the generation of public outrage.

37. Despite the gross misinterpretation of my tweet, I nevertheless complied with

Geordins request to apologise and posted the following: I apologise unreservedly
for a tweet that may have come across as a defence of colonialism. It was not.

38. I repeated this sentiment in the urgent debate called by the ANC on the subject in
Parliament as follows:

This debate is about a series of tweets relating to lessons learnt from my recent visit to
Singapore and Japan.
None of them defended, justified or praised colonialism or apartheid. I can factually say
that few in this house have put as much on the line to fight apartheid as I did.
Of course, colonialism had a diabolical impact worldwide, including South Africa. That
was the very premise of my tweets. Anyone who read them without a personal or

7
political agenda would have understood that. If you say the consequences of something
were not ONLY negative, you are saying most WERE negative.
But if there was anyone who genuinely thought I was praising, defending or justifying
colonialism, I apologised unreservedly and stressed that this was not so. I do so again.
In South Africa, colonialism and apartheid subjugated and oppressed a majority, and
benefited a minority, on the basis of race. This is indeed indefensible, and I have never
supported, justified, praised or promoted it, as my life story attests.

39. It is important to note that in his correspondence with me, the Leader did not merely
wish me to apologise unreservedly. He also sent me a list of statements he required
the apology to include such as an admission that my tweets and subsequent
defence and justification of them brought the party into disrepute.

40. This is one of the offences I am charged with under the Federal Constitution. In
requiring this admission of me, before the hearing, the Leader is opening the way for
a conviction and sentence, while nullifying my right to a defence. There was no
mention in the letter of the charges being withdrawn if I admitted guilt to an offence
I do not believe I committed. This could have very serious implications that I hardly
need to spell out.

41. Finally, I dispute your statement that you are not legally bound to give me an
opportunity to make representations on your intention to suspend me. Section 3.6.3
of the Federal Constitution obliges you to do so, and I submit that section 11.6.5
cannot remove that obligation, which is a basic requirement of fair administrative
process.

42. All the above notwithstanding, it has become clear to me that the majority of Fedex
members do not wish for me to currently attend its formal meetings or activities
pending the determination of my disciplinary hearing. I note that before the Fedex
took the decision to suspend me, I was already being excluded from party activities
and events.

43. Whilst I have been profoundly hurt by the way this matter has been handled by
Fedex and the unfounded accusations that are being levelled against me by the
leadership currently, which I can only style as a vindictive and personal campaign
against me, I have no intention of participating on a DA Fedex or Federal Council
under current circumstances. As the Leader knows, I have asked him, before every
Fedex since this issue arose, whether he would prefer me to absent myself. When
he answered in the affirmative, I stayed away in order to make matters easier for
him. Given this background, had Fedex asked me to consider voluntarily not
attending Fedex or Federal Council meetings whilst my disciplinary matter is
ongoing, I would have willingly agreed. I therefore hereby volunteer not to attend
any Fedex or Federal Council meeting or related matter in my current capacity (i.e.
as a co- opted member), until my disciplinary matter is resolved, one way or another.
This will hopefully alleviate the need for Fedex to take another unlawful decision to
suspend me from those party structures and a costly time-consuming court case that
could then ensue. This decision should however not be construed as me accepting
that there is a basis for suspension. Instead, it is underpinned by two core

8
 considerations, first, that the matter has already been prejudged and accordingly my
rights to a fair process have already been compromised and second, in the interests
of saving the party any further reputational damage, cost or time wastage.

44. I would be grateful if Fedex and the leadership portray this decision as being what it
is: an honest attempt by me, and at my initiative, to save the party any further
reputational damage, cost or time wastage.

45. However I cannot agree or volunteer to do the same in respect of my current

membership of the DA Provincial caucus and council, given that my attendance at
these bodies is important to my continued involved and proactive leadership of the
Provincial Government and in line with the DAs goals and objectives, as well as any
other party activities where I am requested to share my expertise and experience to
the benefit of the party.

The above are the reasons why I believe an unbiased Fedex needs to re-apply its collective
mind, and reach a different conclusion to the one reached on Saturday 3 June, and
announced by the Leader subsequently.

My deadline for submitting these reasons is 17h00 on Tuesday 6 June

(today). I have been given to understand that a Fedex telecon has been
organized for 19h00 to consider this submission and make a decision. Given
my concerns raised above, regarding the disqualifications of Fedex members
to take this decision now, and the weight of my submission, it is
inappropriate for any such decision to be taken at this speed and on this
basis. I urge you to give my submission proper analysis and detailed
consideration so as to avoid further irregularities in this matter.

Thank you

Helen Zille
DA Member