Khusela Sangoni-Diko, chairperson of the Parliament Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies, is seeking clarity from communications and digital technologies minister Solly Malatsi over the alleged lobbying of Starlink to get an operating licence in South Africa by Democratic Alliance (DA) ministers.
This, after former DA leader John Steenhuisen sparked political controversy when alleging in a recent News24 interview that Tony Leon’s public affairs firm, Resolve Communications, sought to arrange meetings between government ministers and private sector clients, including representatives of Starlink.
Resolve Communications has rejected the claims as baseless and denied acting improperly, while Leon has also denied any wrongdoing, saying no evidence has been produced to support the allegations.
In her letter to Malatsi, Sangoni-Diko says during the interview, Steenhuisen was questioned about Resolve Communications, chaired by former DA leader Leon, and its engagements with members of the executive.
In response to a question regarding whether Resolve Communications had attempted to arrange meetings between ministers and its clients, Steenhuisen stated: “Yes, and other ministers as well, most notably Solly Malatsi on Starlink, so they’ve tried to get ministers to meet with various of their clients.”
Later in the interview he further stated: “I did meet with the Starlink people; the meeting was set up and ostensibly really just turned into a complaint session that Solly wasn't moving fast enough.”
Serious allegations
According to Sangoni-Diko, the statements made are of a serious nature; namely, that a private lobbying firm chaired by a former DA leader leveraged, or attempted to leverage, political relationships to secure access to and ostensibly action from a serving minister.
“The alleged intention was to lobby on behalf of, or influence government decisions related to, a private company, specifically, Starlink. At face value, these allegations invoke concerning historical precedents in our country where private interests sought to direct government policy and executive decisions during the state capture era,” she says.
“If proven accurate, these allegations raise profound concerns regarding the propriety of engagements between public office bearers and private interests, particularly where such engagements may relate to policy development, regulatory processes or executive decision-making within the communications and digital technologies sector.”
The spat comes as Starlink, owned by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, has faced a prolonged regulatory impasse in South Africa as it seeks entry into one of Africa’s largest telecoms markets. Local law requires that telecoms operators meet ownership and empowerment conditions, including a minimum 30% stake held by historically-disadvantaged South Africans, which Starlink has not yet complied with.
In the letter, Sangoni-Diko asks Malatsi to disclose any engagements he or his ministry have had with Resolve Communications, Starlink or their representatives since taking office in 2024.
She requests details of when the engagements took place, who participated, what was discussed, whether they were conducted through official channels and whether records exist.
Sangoni-Diko also asks whether the meetings influenced any policy, regulatory or licensing decisions relating to Starlink, and requested copies of any related documentation.
The chairperson says the information was necessary to ensure transparency and address any perception of undue private influence over government decision-making.
“I would appreciate receiving your detailed written response, together with any supporting documentation, by Monday, 6 July 2026. Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to your response.”
The Department of Communications and Digital Technologies had not responded to ITWeb’s questions by the time of publication.
Urgent probe needed
Political party ActionSA has asked president Cyril Ramaphosa to launch an urgent investigation into the matter.
“Reeking of textbook state capture, these allegations raise serious questions about the integrity of the executive and whether politically-connected commercial interests were afforded privileged access to GNU [Government of National Unity] ministers entrusted with exercising public power solely in the national interest,” says ActionSA in a statement.
“To that end, the president cannot remain silent. When a GNU Cabinet minister alleges that politically-connected lobbyists may have enjoyed privileged access to GNU members of the executive on behalf of paying private clients, the president has a constitutional obligation to assure South Africans that Cabinet decision-making remains free from any undue and irregular influence and undisclosed private interests.”
ActionSA adds that its parliamentary questions seek to determine whether DA ministers or deputy ministers met with Resolve Communications or its representatives while in office, whether those meetings were arranged on behalf of private clients, who those clients were, whether policy or legislative matters were discussed, whether the engagements were formally declared and recorded, and what safeguards exist to prevent politically connected lobbying firms from receiving preferential access to government.
The party notes that lobbying is a legitimate practice, but argues that where it involves firms led by former senior politicians with close ties to serving ministers, transparency is essential to uphold public confidence and constitutional principles of openness, accountability and integrity.
‘Objectionable comparison’
In a statement, Leon says Resolve Communications has at all times acted lawfully, transparently and in accordance with the recognised standards of its profession.
“We represent legitimate, law-abiding businesses − enterprises that invest in this country, create employment and contribute to its growth. We help them engage government openly and on the merits of their case. That is the proper work of public affairs, conducted in every functioning democracy on earth. It is a service to the democratic process, through which the concerns of those affected by government decisions are made known to those who take them.
“The comparison to state capture is the part I find most objectionable, and I say so as someone who fought this scourge in various forms from the opposition benches since the advent of South Africa’s hard-fought democracy. State capture was the criminal subversion of public institutions for private enrichment, conducted in secret and in defiance of the law.
“The work of helping a lawful business make its case to government, in the open and on the record, is its precise opposite. To conflate the two is not merely inaccurate. It is an insult to the South Africans who suffered under the real thing, and who fought to bring it to light.”
Share
