Andrew Whitfield analysis - podcast episode cover

Andrew Whitfield analysis

Jun 27, 20255 min
--:--
--:--
Download Metacast podcast app
Listen to this episode in Metacast mobile app
Don't just listen to podcasts. Learn from them with transcripts, summaries, and chapters for every episode. Skim, search, and bookmark insights. Learn more

Episode description

John chats to Vincent Magwenya, Presidency Spokesperson on the axing of Former Deputy Minister Andrew Whitfield.

702 Drive with John Perlman is a Johannesburg based talk radio show. John and his team keep you company on 702 each weekday afternoon. Catch up with the news and issues of the day with John who interviews the daily newsmakers and makes sense of what is going on. John and his team invite you to join their daily conversation, as you travel through the traffic.

Thank you for listening to a podcast from 702 Drive with John Perlman.

Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 15:00 to 18:00 (SA Time) to the Drive with John Perlman broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/G5olsbR or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/75M9Chd Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc

Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Transcript

Speaker 1

Right, let's get into this issue. Then we do, in fact have Vincent mcgwenia presidency spokesperson on the line to us, actually at an airport in severe in Spain. Mister Mogwenea, let's just jump straight into this while we have you, I want to start with the origins of this particular matter and ask you this question. Unless you are disputing that then Deputy Minister Andrew Whitfield wrote requesting permission to travel.

What would be the explanation for the fact that over a ten day period he never got a response to his request. Why would that be?

Speaker 2

I'm g John and grafton on to your listeners. John, I think at this point that postmotem is no longer helpful. The President has already made his decision. He's a waiting for MINNESOTAIS and m the DA to give him a name that proposing for the role and the replacement for former Minister Whitfield, I mean Deputy Minister Whitfield. And that's where we are now. We are looking past this issue.

The President has already made that decision. I don't think a postmatum of who said what, who did what will be any helpful.

Speaker 1

Well, with respect, Miss Mark gwen you in your statement have engaged in exactly that kind of post mortem of who said what? My question I think is relevant. I'm struggling to see why it's so difficult to answer.

Speaker 2

No, it's not difficult to answer the bottom line, John, Unfortunately, the then deputy minister did not get permission. There is no prescribedterialist to when the President can respond to a request. At the end of the day, he did not have

permission to travel, and he went ahead and traveled. He understood the gravity of his actions, according to Minister Stenaisan to the President, he was expecting the sanction and so, as I said, it doesn't help to start need picking at days and to start net picking and who said what, who did what. The President issued that statement simply because he needed to clarify the matter that in the exercise

of his constitutional prerogatives, he doesn't have to explain himself. However, because of the distortions coming from Minister Stenaisen and former Deputy Minister Whitfield in needed to clarify the issue.

Speaker 1

Can can you at least then confirm mister Magwenya that mister Whitfield never got a reply to his request.

Speaker 2

He never got permission that I can confirm to travel to the US.

Speaker 1

Why wouldn't the President not just simply have said no, permission is not given.

Speaker 2

It also it also that if you are not informed that you've been given permission, you are not to travel. So there would have been a number of things on the president's desk that the president felt were priority to attend to, and so the permission was not given.

Speaker 1

What what are what is the range of offenses that the president would consider in removing someone from his cabinets? What are the main factors that he takes into consideration.

Speaker 2

Well, in this particular case, John, it's quite inevident. It has been articulated in the statement that there was a clear violation of rules, rules that are well known to all members of the National Executive and rules that were affirmed during the induction, as well as by the President himself when he addressed the members of the National Executive. And so that is a factor in this particular case.

I cannot talk to either cases. I can talk specifically to this case that this is what informed the president's decision.

Speaker 1

So let me use a phrase that is in the President's statement, a clear violation of rules and established practices governing the conduct of members of the executive Now that presumably is the framework within which these decisions are made.

Is that always, though ultimately the president's prerogative, that even where there are clear violations of rules and established practices governing the conduct of members of the executive which presumably would be the oaths that they take when they take their offers, it is still it's not an automatic step that the president takes. He can weigh it up and decide yes or no.

Speaker 2

It depends on our case furcase process, John. Each case has its own factors, Each case has its own merit that the President will consider.

Speaker 1

Thank you very much, Vincent Mgweny, Presidency spokesperson,

Transcript source: Provided by creator in RSS feed: download file
For the best experience, listen in Metacast app for iOS or Android