ANC To Appeal Court Ruling Ordering Andile Lungisa’s Reinstatement

The African National Congress (ANC) has resolved to appeal a Johannesburg High Court ruling that found the removal of Andile Lungisa from its Nelson Mandela Bay municipal candidate list unlawful and unconstitutional.

The judgment, delivered by Judge NP Mali on Friday, found that ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula had acted outside his authority by removing Lungisa from the party’s proportional representation candidate list shortly before the Electoral Commission of South Africa’s (IEC) submission deadline.

The court declared the decision invalid and ordered Mbalula, the ANC and its national executive committee (NEC) to take steps to restore Lungisa’s name to the party’s internal candidate list. The respondents were also ordered to pay Lungisa’s legal costs on a punitive attorney-and-client scale.

However, the judgment came too late for Lungisa to be added to the ballot for the 4 November local government elections. The IEC told the court it could accept his name only on a supplementary list, which may be called upon after the election if the ANC’s candidate list contains fewer names than the number of seats it wins.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: MK Party Criticises GNU Over Sharp Fuel Price Increases

The judge ordered that Lungisa’s name be included on any such supplementary list.

In a statement responding to the judgment, the ANC said it respected judicial independence but believed the ruling required further consideration by the courts.

“While respecting the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional authority of our courts, the ANC has resolved to appeal the judgment, as it raises fundamental questions concerning the organisational autonomy of political parties and their authority to regulate internal democratic processes,” the party said.

Court Questions Mbalula’s Authority To Remove Candidate

The dispute centres on whether Mbalula had the authority to remove Lungisa from a candidate list that had already been finalised through the ANC’s internal selection process.

Lungisa was announced as a shortlisted mayoral candidate at an ANC event on 22 August. The party’s candidate lists, including his name, were finalised around 27 August.

At approximately 12.37pm on 28 August, less than five hours before the IEC’s 5pm deadline, Lungisa discovered that his name had been removed.

Mbalula subsequently wrote to Lungisa, alleging that he had failed to attend vetting and biometric fingerprinting and requesting official proof that his criminal record had been expunged.

Lungisa told the court that Mbalula had instructed party officials to remove his name and had reportedly said he would cause “problems” if allowed to stand.

According to the judgment, the ANC’s internal rules allowed candidates to be removed if they were disqualified through vetting or voted out by 90% of the extended NEC.

Judge Mali found that the party’s court papers did not adequately explain the vetting requirements Lungisa had allegedly failed to meet, who had the authority to disqualify him or which rule permitted Mbalula to act unilaterally.

The judge also noted that Mbalula had stated in his court papers that his letter to Lungisa did not constitute a final decision.

“A party seeking to justify a decision must place before the court the factual basis upon which that decision was taken,” Mali said.

The judgment further stated that the evidence, considered as a whole, supported Lungisa’s account that he had attended vetting.

Mali said the party’s interpretation of its rules could undermine the safeguards established through its candidate-selection procedures.

“A final list could apparently be altered by an individual office-bearer on the eve of the statutory deadline, notwithstanding the elaborate multi-stage process designed to ensure collective consideration and approval of candidates,” the judge said.

“Such an interpretation would substantially diminish the safeguards created by the internal rules themselves.”

The judge emphasised that political parties play a constitutional role in an electoral democracy and that their internal candidate-selection processes are connected to the exercise of political rights.

ANC Defends Internal Rules And Candidate Selection

The ANC maintains that candidate selection falls within its organisational responsibilities and is governed by its constitution, established guidelines and collective decision-making structures.

In announcing its decision to appeal, the party argued that the judgment raised questions about how internal rules should be interpreted and applied, particularly regarding candidate eligibility and organisational discipline.

“These matters warrant further judicial consideration to ensure clarity on the constitutional relationship between political parties, their internal democratic processes and the courts,” the ANC said.

The party added that it would pursue the appropriate legal remedies while reaffirming its commitment to organisational discipline, democratic centralism and the collective authority of its constitutional structures.

It also called on members to remain united and focused on securing an electoral mandate.

The court proceedings included a dispute over Lungisa’s criminal record and his eligibility to contest the election.

The ANC argued that the date of his release on parole did not establish when his sentence had legally ended.

Lungisa was sentenced on 9 May 2018 to three years’ imprisonment, with one year suspended, after assaulting Democratic Alliance councillor Ryno Kayser with a glass water jug during a Nelson Mandela Bay council meeting in 2016.

He began serving his sentence on 17 September 2020. Lungisa argued that five years had elapsed by 9 May 2025, making him eligible to stand for election.

The court found that the ANC had not sufficiently established the internal or legal basis for treating him as disqualified and removing his name from the final list.

IEC Can Accept Lungisa Only On Supplementary List

The timing of the dispute has limited the immediate effect of the judgment on the November election ballot.

The IEC did not oppose Lungisa’s application but told the court that his name could be accepted only on a supplementary candidate list.

Such a list may be used after the election if a party has fewer candidates available than the number of seats it wins.

Mali ordered that Lungisa’s name be included on any supplementary list used in those circumstances.

The judge also declined Lungisa’s request to hold Mbalula personally liable for the costs, finding that the court papers did not establish bad faith or a personal motive.

The ANC’s planned appeal will challenge the judgment concerning the limits of individual office-bearers’ authority and the relationship between political parties’ internal procedures and judicial oversight.

For now, the High Court ruling stands, including its finding that Lungisa’s removal was unlawful and its order concerning his inclusion on a supplementary list.