Independent Democrats (ID) leader Patricia de Lille says that the 500 members who allegedly left her party at the weekend had not been members of the party and she intended to take legal action against at least one of the members who defected.
She was responding on Monday to an announcement on Sunday by Charles Golding, who claimed to be from the Welcome Estate branch. Golding was reportedly taking 400 to 500 members with him out of the party. Golding argued that she treated her party as ”her personal fiefdom”.
De Lille said at a press conference at Parliament: ”We are not afraid of anyone. We will deal strongly with corruption inside and outside of the party. This is a way of a way of getting back at us.”
In response to why she had not taken legal action against people she accused of corrupt practices, she said: ”We have uncovered more corruption. We were going to do it last week.”
De Lille added she would lay charges on Monday.
Golding, who claimed his disaffected group represented the ID branches of Hanover Park, Welcome Estate, District Six, Steenberg and Bokaap in the Cape Town area, said there were also members from Parkwood and Parow.
He called the press conference on Sunday with Ernest Swift and William Papier, who De Lille said were unknown to her party.
De Lille said Hanover Park had only one member ”to begin with”.
”In Bokaap our membership is over 300 strong and it is standing firm behind the party under the leadership of Suleiman Adams. There is no branch at Welcome Estate or Parow. Welcome Estate is a phantom branch formed by Stanley Sawall in order to secure his nomination as a candidate.”
”Parow is also a phantom branch,” said De Lille, who noted that Sawall would be removed from her party’s election list.
”This is clearly a small group of disaffected persons with an alternative agenda who have called a press conference before attempting to address these alleged issues. It is an attempt to harm the good name of Patricia de Lille,” said the ID in a statement.
Asked how she would prevent elected representatives from leaving her party after the election, she acknowledged that this was never easy. But she indicated that each candidate was asked to sign a letter of resignation, which could be implemented if they did not serve the people — as opposed to seeing their positions as a career path.
She dismissed comparisons with the United Democratic Movement, led by General Bantu Holomisa, which had started off with a charismatic leader but had lost most of its elected representatives in the defection period last year.
That party had been a collection of New National Party and African National Congress interests who could not work together, she argued. — I-Net Bridge
Special Report: Elections 2004