ANC Demands Accountability for DA’s Mark Burke

The ANC Caucus puts finance oversight at the centre

The ANC Parliamentary Caucus has called for Democratic Alliance MP and Federal Finance Chair Mark Burke to be removed from Parliament’s finance-related committees while regulatory and legal processes involving Kastelo, the financial-technology company he founded, continue.

In a statement issued on 17 August 2026, the Caucus argued that Parliament’s finance oversight cannot command public confidence while a member of the Standing Committee on Finance remains politically associated with a company whose transactions are under scrutiny by the South African Reserve Bank’s Financial Surveillance Department.

The Caucus also called on parliamentary authorities to examine whether Burke’s continued participation in finance oversight is consistent with Parliament’s ethical obligations and public-interest responsibilities. Its demand is political and precautionary: Burke has not been found guilty of an offence, and the court proceedings concern Kastelo and the lawfulness of a blocking order rather than a criminal case against him personally.

What the High Court record establishes

The most reliable factual account is found in two judgments of the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.

In November 2025, the Reserve Bank’s Financial Surveillance Department issued an order blocking withdrawals from a Kastelo bank account held with Access Bank. The January 2026 judgment records that FinSurv acted after receiving information from Access Bank, whistleblowers and some Kastelo clients indicating that the transactions appeared to contravene exchange-control regulations.

Kastelo first approached the court urgently. On 19 January 2026, that application was struck from the urgent roll for lack of urgency, with costs. That judgment did not decide whether the blocking order should be set aside on review.

The substantive review followed. On 28 July 2026, Acting Judge S. Johnson dismissed Kastelo’s application and ordered punitive attorney-and-client costs. The court held that the SARB decision-maker had reasonable grounds to suspect contraventions and had lawfully issued the blocking order after assessing information from several sources.

That finding is important, but its limits are equally important. A blocking order is temporary and preservatory. The legal threshold is reasonable suspicion, not proof that a completed contravention or criminal offence occurred. The judgment did not find Burke personally guilty of wrongdoing.

Burke’s relationship with Kastelo

Burke founded Kastelo and served as its chief executive until June 2024, when Nicholas Burke became CEO. Kastelo says Mark Burke later stepped down as chairperson in February 2026 and is no longer involved in an executive or non-executive role, although he retains an indirect interest in the group.

MyBroadband reported that Burke did not comment in his personal capacity and referred questions to Kastelo. The company said Burke is not a party to the court proceedings and, according to its understanding, is not the subject of the SARB investigation.

Kastelo disputes the characterisation of its business model in the allegations. It says the court made no finding that its underlying business activities contravened exchange-control regulations, that the SARB investigation remains underway and that it has voluntarily paused its arbitrage service while continuing other operations.

His parliamentary roles make the issue a public-interest question

Parliament’s current committee records list Burke as a full member of the Standing Committee on Finance. He is also listed as an alternate member of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

That distinction matters. The ANC Caucus statement describes Burke’s committee positions differently in parts of its removal demand. The People’s Register has used Parliament’s current committee composition pages as the authoritative record.

The Standing Committee on Finance scrutinises legislation, policy and institutions at the centre of the country’s financial architecture. The political question raised by the Caucus is therefore not remote from Burke’s parliamentary duties: it concerns whether continued participation creates a reasonable perception of competing interests while the regulator’s investigation continues.

The DA and Kastelo responses

DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis has publicly backed Burke while the investigation runs its course. TimesLIVE reported Hill-Lewis as saying that Burke is no longer Kastelo’s chairperson, is not involved in its day-to-day operations and has not personally been accused of wrongdoing. He said the DA would act if a court made findings against one of its public representatives.

That response correctly separates Burke personally from Kastelo’s litigation. It does not, however, dispose of the political question raised by the ANC: whether a precautionary step is appropriate because Burke remains a senior DA finance figure and a member of Parliament’s principal finance committee.

Kastelo’s response also belongs prominently in the record. The company says it has cooperated with the authorities, disputes the allegations concerning its business model and maintains that no final finding of an exchange-control contravention has been made against it.

The DA’s own accountability language creates the comparison

The accountability test is sharpened by Burke’s own recent interventions in Parliament.

In July 2026, Burke accused Parliament’s Finance Committee of failing to call Public Investment Corporation officials to account amid whistleblower allegations and executive suspensions. He argued that, in a moment of institutional crisis, Parliament had a constitutional duty to summon officials and establish what had happened.

In a separate DA statement, the party asked why PIC chairperson and Deputy Finance Minister David Masondo had not been suspended amid reported allegations and renewed its call for urgent parliamentary scrutiny.

Those interventions establish the comparison without requiring The People’s Register to declare the DA hypocritical as a matter of fact. The relevant question is whether the same political threshold of precaution, scrutiny and protection of institutional credibility is applied when the person under scrutiny is a senior DA finance figure.

Consistency does not require prejudging Burke or Kastelo. It requires explaining why allegations justify suspension or removal in one political context but not another.

What remains unresolved

The Reserve Bank investigation remains ongoing. The July judgment upheld the reasonableness and legality of the blocking order, but it did not establish criminal guilt. Kastelo continues to dispute the underlying allegations, and Burke has not been personally charged or found to have committed an exchange-control violation.

The parliamentary question is separate from the final outcome of the regulatory process. Parliament and political parties routinely make precautionary decisions to protect public confidence before every factual or legal question has been finally adjudicated. Whether that step is justified here is the argument now placed before the DA and Parliament.

The ANC Caucus has made its position clear: Burke should be removed from finance-related committees pending the conclusion of the relevant processes. The DA’s public position is that it is standing by him in the absence of a finding against him personally.

The matter will now test more than one politician. It will test whether Parliament’s oversight standards and the parties’ demands for accountability remain consistent when political roles are reversed.

Related reading

• Why Is a Councillor Who Admitted False Qualification Claims Ranked Fourth for a Cape Town Seat?
• EFF No-Confidence Motion Against Speaker Defeated in Parliament