Key Takeaways
- Former environment minister Dion George says an email from Resolve Communications’ Victoria Tompkins proves the firm ran a negative campaign against him after he refused to meet Redisa, a client in litigation with his department.
- The September 22 2025 email pitched an opinion piece by Redisa director Stacey Jansen arguing a “leadership vacuum” in the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, timed with rumors of a cabinet reshuffle.
- George was removed from the portfolio seven weeks after the email was sent; he claims the timing shows a coordinated effort to undermine him.
- Resolve denies any campaign, stating it merely submitted opinion pieces on behalf of clients and that the email referenced a public debate already covered in the media.
- The controversy revives earlier allegations that Resolve leverages its ties to DA officials to secure meetings for private‑sector clients, including Starlink and Uber, and that it has been involved in government communications contracts dating back to the 2017‑18 Day Zero drought response.
- Redisa’s litigation over its waste‑tyre management scheme, a 2019 Supreme Court of Appeal judgment that deemed its liquidation unlawful, provides the backdrop for Jansen’s criticism of George.
- Tony Leon, chair of Resolve, insists the firm does not dictate ministerial decisions and describes the accusations as politically motivated.
- Opposition parties, including the ANC and ActionSA, have called for an independent investigation, while DA leader Geordin Hill‑Lewis maintains that minister‑stakeholder meetings are normal and proper.
- The episode underscores ongoing concerns about the influence of public‑relations firms on South African government decision‑making and the need for transparency in lobbying activities.
Allegations Emerge from a Leaked Email
Former environment minister Dion George told IOL that an email he received from Victoria Tompkins of Resolve Communications provided the evidence he had long suspected: that the firm was orchestrating a negative publicity campaign against him. The email, dated September 22 2025, was confirmed by Resolve and showed Tompkins offering an opinion piece to a news outlet on behalf of Redisa, the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa, which was then locked in litigation with George’s department over its waste‑tyre management scheme. George said he had repeatedly refused meeting requests from Resolve on Redisa’s behalf, and after his refusals the negative commentary began.
The Pitch: Framing a Leadership Vacuum
In the email, Tompkins explained why the opinion piece should be published, noting that minister George was publicly defending his performance amid rumors of a possible cabinet reshuffle highlighted in the Sunday Times the previous weekend. The piece, authored by Redisa director Stacey Jansen, argued that there was a “leadership vacuum” in the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, a gap that had become apparent during the ongoing review of the National Waste Management Strategy. Tompkins argued the article was timely and newsworthy, emphasizing that it had not been submitted or published elsewhere.
George’s Removal and His Interpretation
Seven weeks after the email was sent, Dion George was relieved of his duties as environment minister and replaced by Willie Aucamp. George told IOL that the timing reinforced his belief that Resolve had launched a coordinated negative campaign after he declined to meet Redisa. He said he had previously lacked proof, but the email gave him the concrete evidence he needed to substantiate his claim that Resolve’s actions were aimed at undermining his position.
Resolve’s Denial of a Campaign
Victoria Tompkins responded to IOL on behalf of Resolve, insisting that the claim of a negative campaign was “a fiction” and part of an effort to smear the firm. She stated that Resolve, like any public‑relations agency, routinely submits opinion pieces on behalf of its clients and that the email merely referenced a public debate already covered in the Sunday Times. Tompkins stressed that there is no evidence of a campaign, asserting that the notion is baseless.
Tompkins’ Background and Role
Tompkins is a former Democratic Alliance (DA) staff member who worked as an opposition researcher at the party’s federal head office before joining Resolve. Her experience in political research and communications positions her as a conduit between Resolve’s clients and governmental stakeholders. Her DA ties have been cited in earlier allegations that the firm leverages its connections to senior DA officials to facilitate meetings for private‑sector clients.
Content and Context of the Opinion Piece
The opinion piece pitched by Jansen contended that South Africa needed “bold, decisive action on waste management in 2025” and directly called on George to act. It criticized the department’s handling of the growing waste‑management crisis, particularly concerning waste tyre management and recycling, framing the situation as a leadership failure. Jansen had already been publicly critical of George; in January 2025 she wrote that Redisa had attempted to engage the department in good faith without success, leaving litigation as the only recourse.
Leon’s Defense and Political Motivation Claims
Tony Leon, chair of Resolve Communications, has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, describing the allegations as politically motivated. He asserted that the firm does not, and cannot, direct the decisions of ministers or officials, and that a request for a meeting that is freely refused does not constitute corruption. Leon emphasized that Respect for a client’s refusal is standard practice and that the accusations lack substantive evidence.
Prior Controversies Surrounding Resolve
Resolve has faced scrutiny since late June 2025 when former DA leader John Steenhuisen alleged that the firm used its proximity to DA ministers to arrange meetings between government officials and its private‑sector clients, including Elon Musk’s Starlink. Steenhuisen claimed he was shocked by the discovery and accused Resolve of orchestrating a campaign against him over the government’s handling of a foot‑and‑mouth disease outbreak; he was subsequently moved from agriculture minister to deputy minister of trade, industry and competition. Earlier, former Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille recounted that Resolve acted as a subcontractor for the city’s Day Zero drought communications campaign in 2017‑18, a contract worth roughly R658,000.
Redisa Litigation and Historical Context
Redisa’s Integrated Industry Waste Tyre Management Plan, approved by then‑environment minister Edna Molewa in November 2012, was targeted for liquidation in June 2017. Molewa’s application succeeded in the Cape Town High Court, but a 2019 Supreme Court of Appeal judgment ruled the removal unlawful, vindicating Redisa. Redisa now pursues damages against the liquidators, a litigation backdrop that informs Jansen’s critiques of George’s leadership. The firm’s long‑standing involvement in waste‑tyre management and its legal battles provide the substantive foundation for the opinion piece Resolve pitched.
Political Reactions and Calls for Investigation
The ANC has demanded an independent investigation into the alleged impropriety, and ActionSA has formally petitioned President Cyril Ramaphosa to institute one. Ramaphosa replied that the truth must emerge, while DA leader Geordin Hill‑Lewis defended his party, arguing that meetings between ministers and stakeholders or lobby groups are normal and not improper. The ongoing debate highlights broader concerns about transparency, lobbying influence, and the role of public‑relations firms in shaping governmental policy in South Africa.
Conclusion: A Nexus of PR, Politics, and Accountability
The episode involving Dion George, Resolve Communications, and Redisa encapsulates a tangled intersection of public‑relations strategy, ministerial accountability, and legal disputes over waste management. While George presents the leaked email as proof of a targeted negative campaign, Resolve maintains its actions were routine client representation. The controversy revives earlier accusations of undue influence tied to the DA’s network and raises pressing questions about how South Africa can safeguard decision‑making processes from covert lobbying, ensuring that policy outcomes serve the public interest rather than private agendas.