Key Takeaways
- The Gauteng High Court ruled that ANC Secretary‑General Fikile Mbalula’s removal of ANC NEC member Andile Lungisa from the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro proportional‑representation list was unlawful and unconstitutional.
- Lungisa had been ranked first by the ANC’s internal processes before his deletion.
- The ANC justified the removal by citing Lungisa’s criminal conviction and an allegedly incomplete vetting procedure.
- The court emphasized that any relief must respect the Electoral Commission of South Africa’s (IEC) statutory limits under Item 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the Municipal Structures Act, which allows parties to supplement their candidate lists.
- The judgment orders that Lungisa’s name may be submitted on a supplementary ANC list, provided all statutory requirements are met.
- The decision reinforces judicial oversight of internal party decisions that affect electoral processes and highlights tensions between party discipline and constitutional electoral rights.
- Political analysts view the ruling as a potential precedent for future challenges to ANC list‑management practices in metropolitan areas.
- The outcome may influence the balance of power in Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, where proportional representation seats are closely contested.
- Both the ANC and opposition parties are likely to reassess their internal vetting and list‑submission procedures in light of the court’s insistence on procedural fairness.
- Lungisa’s reinstatement restores his eligibility to contest the upcoming municipal elections, pending IEC approval of the supplementary list.
Background of Lungisa’s Removal
In September 2024, ANC Secretary‑General Fikile Mbalula convened a meeting of ANC functionaries at a Johannesburg hotel. During that gathering, Mbalula issued a directive to delete the name of Andile Lungisa—a member of the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC)—from the party’s proportional‑representation list for the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro. The instruction came despite Lungisa having previously secured the top position on the list through the ANC’s internal ranking mechanisms. The abrupt nature of the directive surprised many party members, who viewed it as an unilateral exercise of authority that bypassed established consultative structures.
Internal Ranking and Procedural Context
Prior to Mbalula’s intervention, the ANC’s internal vetting committee had conducted a series of consultations, surveys, and deliberations that placed Lungisa at the forefront of the candidates earmarked for the Metro’s proportional‑representation seats. This ranking was based on a combination of factors, including loyalty to the party leadership, grassroots mobilization capacity, and compliance with the ANC’s code of conduct. The internal process is designed to ensure transparency and merit‑based selection, and Lungisa’s placement at the top reflected the outcome of that deliberative exercise. The subsequent removal therefore appeared to contradict the very procedures the ANC claims to uphold.
ANC’s Justification for the Deletion
In its court papers, the ANC defended Mbalula’s decision by pointing to two substantive grounds: Lungisa’s prior criminal conviction and an alleged deficiency in his vetting file. The party argued that the conviction rendered him ineligible under the ANC’s internal eligibility criteria, which bar individuals with certain criminal records from holding party office or appearing on electoral lists. Additionally, the ANC contended that Lungisa’s vetting documentation was incomplete, citing missing disclosures about financial interests and potential conflicts of interest. These rationales were presented as necessary safeguards to protect the integrity of the party and its electoral offerings.
Lungisa’s Legal Challenge and Arguments
Andile Lungisa launched an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court, asserting that Mbalula’s order was both unlawful and unconstitutional. His legal team argued that the Secretary‑General lacked the unilateral authority to amend a candidate list that had already been finalized through internal party processes. They emphasized that the removal violated Lungisa’s right to fair administrative action, as enshrined in section 33 of the Constitution, and contravened the ANC’s own constitution, which requires collective decision‑making for list alterations. Furthermore, Lungisa’s counsel highlighted that the alleged criminal conviction had been previously disclosed and considered during the internal ranking, rendering the post‑hoc justification procedurally unfair.
Court’s Analysis Regarding the Electoral Commission and Municipal Structures Act
Judge Nelisa Phiwokazi Mali examined the interplay between internal party decisions and the statutory framework governing municipal elections. The judgment noted that Item 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the Municipal Structures Act grants parties a limited opportunity to supplement their candidate lists after the initial submission, subject to the Electoral Commission of South Africa’s (IEC) oversight. The court stressed that any judicial relief must align with the IEC’s statutory powers and cannot compel the commission to act outside its electoral legislation or timetable. Consequently, the judge ruled that while the ANC’s removal of Lungisa was flawed, the appropriate remedy was not to reinstate him directly on the original list but to allow his name to be added via a supplementary list, provided all IEC requirements are satisfied.
Judgment Outcome and Relief Granted
In line with the above reasoning, Judge Mali declared that Mbalula’s decision to delete Lungisa’s name was unlawful and unconstitutional. The court ordered that the ANC be afforded the opportunity to submit Lungisa’s name as part of a supplementary list to the IEC, subject to compliance with Item 17(1) and any other relevant statutory provisions. The judgment stopped short of directing the IEC to accept the supplement automatically; instead, it left the final determination to the commission, which must verify that the supplementary submission meets all legal criteria, including timely filing and adherence to the party’s internal rules as they pertain to list amendments.
Implications for ANC and Nelson Mandela Bay Metro Politics
The ruling carries significant ramifications for the ANC’s internal governance and its electoral prospects in Nelson Mandela Bay Metro. By curbing the Secretary‑General’s unilateral power to alter candidate lists, the judgment reinforces the necessity for collective, transparent procedures within the party. For the Metro, where proportional‑representation seats often determine coalition dynamics, Lungisa’s potential return could shift the balance of power, especially if he garners substantial support from ward‑level structures. Opposition parties may also interpret the decision as a signal to scrutinize ANC list‑management practices more closely, possibly prompting their own legal challenges to perceived irregularities.
Reactions from Parties and Stakeholders
Responses to the judgment have been varied. ANC officials publicly welcomed the court’s emphasis on upholding constitutional principles, while some senior figures expressed disappointment that the judgment appeared to limit the leadership’s discretion in candidate selection. Opposition parties, notably the Democratic Alliance and the Economic Freedom Fighters, lauded the decision as a victory for electoral fairness and a check on partisan overreach. Civil‑society organizations focused on good governance hailed the ruling as a reinforcement of the rule of law in internal party affairs, urging the ANC to adopt stricter internal controls to prevent future disputes.
Broader Significance for Internal Party Discipline and Electoral Law
Beyond the immediate case, the decision underscores a growing judicial willingness to intervene when internal party mechanisms threaten the integrity of electoral processes. It highlights the tension between party discipline—often exercised through top‑down directives—and the constitutional rights of members to fair treatment and participation in democratic selection. Legal scholars suggest that the ruling may serve as a precedent for similar disputes in other provinces, particularly where party secretaries‑general or other officials attempt to modify candidate lists outside established consultative frameworks. The judgment also reminds parties that any internal sanctions must be consistent with both party constitutions and national electoral legislation.
Conclusion and Forward Look
The Gauteng High Court’s ruling that Andile Lungisa’s removal from the ANC’s proportional‑representation list was unlawful and unconstitutional marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of party politics and electoral law in South Africa. While the judgment does not guarantee Lungisa’s automatic placement on the final ballot, it opens a clear pathway for his reinstatement via a supplementary list, contingent upon IEC approval. As the ANC navigates the aftermath, the party will likely revisit its internal procedures for list amendments to ensure they align with constitutional mandates and statutory requirements. For voters in Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, the case adds a layer of uncertainty to the upcoming municipal elections, but also reinforces the principle that electoral processes—whether managed by parties or overseen by the Electoral Commission—must remain transparent, fair, and subject to judicial oversight.