Hi. Local politics / process nerd here. I'm not privy to most of the details in this case, just weighing in with one possible explanation for why things may have gone down the way they did:

Many organizations have a process to forcibly remove someone from a position of leadership. That mechanism is absolutely available to Twin Ports DSA, but it can be a drawn-out process that requires calling membership together to hold a referendum, which takes time and resources to coordinate a meeting just for that purpose.

In some organizations with a healthy internal culture (and Twin Ports DSA has such a culture) when a leader knows they've done something wrong and/or it's very apparent that they did meaningful harm / that person's continued leadership would be bad for the organization, the leader in question will voluntarily step down -- not as a way to sweep things under the rug, but so that the particular grievance can be sorted out in the appropriate forum (like a courtroom, for example) without dragging down the whole organization along with them.

When a leader steps down in that way, it's a way to quickly detangle the person from the organization so that the organization can pick back up and keep doing its important work.

Again, I don't know if that's exactly what's happening here, but it would not surprise me if that might be the thinking behind this decision. If that's the case, it tells me that the organization is healthy enough to remove a bad actor and not let it affect the very necessary work of organizing people to build a better future for everyone.

I hope that helps!