Excerpt: LFN has now taken the unprecedented step of challenging almost the entire DA Cabinet in court — Steenhuisen, McPherson, Gwarube, and soon Schreiber. From unlawful vaccine rollouts, concealed decision records, unconstitutional school regulations, and chaotic filings in the Expropriation Act case, the DA has revealed a disturbing truth: once in power, they have become everything they once condemned.
While the DA hides decisions, bypasses public participation, and pushes mandates behind closed doors, LFN stands alone in holding each of these ministers to account. This article exposes how the “clean alternative” lost its way — and how LFN is forcing transparency back into government, one court case at a time.
If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?
or make Quick donation… MobiPaid
The DA promised to be different.
Transparent. Principled. Honest.
A party that would challenge the abuse of power — not participate in it.
But today, the irony is complete:
LFN is now litigating against almost every major DA minister.
Not for politics.
Not for headlines.
But because each of them — in their own portfolio — has adopted the exact unconstitutional practices the DA once warned the country about.
This is the uncomfortable truth the public has been shielded from.
STEENHUISEN: TWO COURT CASES – AND BOTH IN TROUBLE
1. THE POULTRY CASE – LFN vs Steenhuisen
LFN dragged Minister John Henry Steenhuisen to court for authorising the mass vaccination of poultry against avian influenza without lawful authority.
The court papers show:
- vaccines were announced on 05 June 2025,
- the legal permit was only issued on 30 June 2025,
- SAPA played a silent but powerful role,
- and the Minister’s decision record was produced late, defective, and exposed glaring irregularities.
This is not theory —
This is an active High Court case initiated by LFN.
And it shook the DA leadership to the core.
2. THE CATTLE / FMD CASE – LFN vs Steenhuisen (Case Two)
The second case is already filed.
Steenhuisen was required to submit his decision record relating to the mass vaccination of cattle against Foot-and-Mouth Disease by 28 October 2025.
He did not.
This is now forming the basis for LFN’s next round of litigation —
a second court battle already in progress.
Two cases.
Both linked to rushed vaccine programmes.
Both showing a disturbing pattern of secrecy.
And both taken to court by LFN, not by any political party.
GWARUBE: LFN vs the Minister of Basic Education
LFN has filed a comprehensive PAJA review application against Minister Siviwe Gwarube.
Why?
Because the draft “Admission of Learners to Public Schools Regulations, 2025” introduced a back-door vaccine mandate for every child entering a public school.
And here is the crucial point:
LFN’s case states that the publishing of the draft itself was unconstitutional.
Public comment cannot cure a fatally unlawful regulation.
If the notice is invalid, the entire process collapses.
This case is already before the courts.
LFN is the applicant.
The DA minister is the respondent.
And like Steenhuisen, Gwarube failed to file her full decision record on 28 October 2025.
Another DA minister.
Another LFN court battle.
Another refusal to comply with the law.
MCPHERSON: LFN vs the Minister of Public Works & Infrastructure
In the Expropriation Act litigation in the Western Cape, Dean McPherson claimed to “abide the decision of the Court”.
In reality, LFN found itself fighting:
- one defective affidavit,
- then a second defective affidavit,
- and now a third irregular filing from McPherson’s legal team.
These filings were so badly constructed that LFN has already launched:
• Two interlocutory applications (irregular steps)
• A third one now being prepared
All aimed at striking out the Minister’s unlawful attempts to oppose LFN’s amicus curiae application.
This is not an opinion piece.
This is not political commentary.
These are ongoing legal proceedings where LFN stands against a sitting DA minister who cannot comply with basic court rules.
SCHREIBER: DIGITAL ID & THE NEXT LIKELY COURT BATTLE
Minister of Home Affairs, Dr Leon Amos Schreiber, is not yet a respondent in an LFN court case —
but it is now almost certain he soon will be.
His aggressive push for the Digital ID (“DID”) system, without proper public participation or constitutional validation, has already triggered:
- LFN’s formal Digital ID Investigation Project,
- a public mobilisation effort,
- and a legal review of the regulatory framework Schreiber is constructing.
Based on his conduct to date, a court battle is inevitable, and LFN is preparing accordingly.
LFN is already litigating against three DA ministers.
Schreiber is next on the list.
THE PATTERN: FOUR DA MINISTERS — FOUR LFN LEGAL CHALLENGES
Let’s lay it out plainly:
| DA Minister | Portfolio | LFN Legal Status |
|---|---|---|
| John Henry Steenhuisen | Agriculture | Two active High Court cases (poultry vaccines + cattle/FMD vaccines) |
| Siviwe Gwarube | Basic Education | Active review application (school vaccine mandate) |
| Dean McPherson | Public Works | Three interlocutory cases (Expropriation Act filings) |
| Leon Schreiber | Home Affairs | Digital ID challenge underway; litigation imminent |
This is not “LFN picking on the DA”.
This is the DA repeatedly breaking the law,
and LFN repeatedly being forced to intervene.
The public needs to understand this:
LFN is the only organisation in South Africa currently litigating against almost the entire DA cabinet cluster.
Not civil society.
Not the media.
Not MPs.
Not NGOs with funding.
Only LFN — a volunteer movement powered by public donation.
WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE DA?
That the party promising ethical governance now:
- hides decision records,
- pushes vaccine mandates,
- ignores statutory deadlines,
- files irregular affidavits,
- collaborates with industry bodies like SAPA behind closed doors,
- circumvents administrative law,
- drafts unconstitutional regulations,
- and suppresses transparency.
LFN once challenged the ANC for these behaviours.
Now LFN is challenging the DA for the same — and in some cases, worse.
This is not political.
This is constitutional.
The DA is now behaving like a party that believes it is unaccountable.
That is exactly when a nation needs strong civil resistance.
LFN has stepped into that space — alone, but unwilling to stand down.
CONCLUSION: THE FIGHT FOR ACCOUNTABILITY HAS NO PARTY COLOURS
LFN did not change.
The DA did.
LFN remains:
• apolitical,
• publicly funded,
• volunteer-driven,
• committed to constitutionalism.
And that is why LFN is now standing in court — again and again — against DA ministers who act unlawfully.
The DA used to fight for transparency.
LFN now fights against the DA to restore it.
Kindly consider supporting our work by giving a donation or gift of your choice.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.