The urgent High Court application brought by expelled MK Party figures Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla and Nhlamulo Ndhlela to overturn their expulsion was struck from the roll on Tuesday.
Image: Itumeleng English
The urgent High Court application brought by expelled MK Party figures Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla and Nhlamulo Ndhlela to overturn their expulsion was struck from the roll on Tuesday after the presiding judge said he had not been given sufficient time to study the court papers and prepare for the matter.
In a joint statement issued on Tuesday, the pair stressed that the outcome was purely procedural and did not amount to a ruling on the merits of their case.
“The matter was struck from the roll on procedural grounds after the presiding Judge indicated that he had not been afforded sufficient opportunity to read the papers and adequately prepare himself to hear the application,” they said.
They added that “this decision was not a determination on the merits of the case, nor does it mean the case or its urgency is dismissed.”
Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela said they had instructed their legal team to urgently re-enrol the matter next week, expressing confidence that the court would ultimately consider the issues before it.
“We remain confident that these issues deserve to be ventilated before the Court and determined in accordance with the law,” they said.
Striking a defiant tone, the pair added: “We shall not submit to attempts to frustrate the pursuit of justice through procedural delays.”
Zuma-Sambudla, the daughter of former president and MK Party leader Jacob Zuma, and Ndhlela, the party’s founding national spokesperson, were expelled with immediate effect on June 18.
Announcing the decision at a media briefing, secretary-general Sibonelo Nomvalo accused the two of acting in ways that were inconsistent with the party’s constitution, values and organisational interests.
According to the party, Zuma-Sambudla used public platforms and social media to undermine party unity, promote factional narratives and discredit the party’s leadership. Ndhlela, meanwhile, was accused of holding unauthorised media briefings and misrepresenting official party positions.
Both were also implicated by the party in events surrounding the death of MK Party MP Mzikayise Ntshingila, who died on June 4, at the age of 43. The party alleged that the pair transferred the ailing MP to another healthcare facility without his family’s knowledge and removed his belongings from his parliamentary residence without informing his relatives.
The two maintain they only learnt of their expulsion through media reports. Speaking at a press briefing in Sandton three days later, they announced their intention to challenge the decision in court.
At the time, Ndhlela warned that the expulsion created a dangerous precedent.
“If constitutional protections can be ignored for founders of the movement, what protection remains for the ordinary members?” he asked.
In their founding affidavit before the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela argue that they were expelled through a public announcement without ever being served with formal charges, notified of disciplinary proceedings or given an opportunity to respond.
The court papers further state that although disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against Ndhlela over allegations including factionalism and insubordination, the process was allegedly never concluded before the party publicly announced his expulsion.
The applicants also challenge the legal basis relied upon by Nomvalo.
They argue that the secretary-general invoked a “Section 2(h)” of the MK Party constitution that does not exist. According to their court papers, the clause dealing with presidential powers appears elsewhere in the constitution and does not authorise the expulsion of permanent members.
They contend that relying on a non-existent constitutional provision renders the decision irrational, unlawful and liable to be set aside.
Ndhlela, who remains a sitting Member of Parliament, has also written to National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza requesting that no action be taken regarding his parliamentary seat until the legal proceedings have been concluded. He argues that losing his seat before the court rules would cause irreparable harm.
The applicants’ case has also been bolstered by a separate legal opinion commissioned by Ndhlela before launching the court application.
The opinion concluded that the party leadership bypassed its own constitution by announcing his expulsion without first referring the matter to the National Disciplinary Committee for a hearing. It described the decision as “unconstitutional, procedurally invalid and unenforceable”, adding that “any dismissal or expulsion without an NDC hearing is unlawful and susceptible to immediate challenge.”
Despite the bitter dispute, Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela have consistently sought to distance Jacob Zuma from the controversy.
They insist they harbour no ill will towards the former president, instead placing responsibility for their expulsion on individuals within his inner circle.
With the matter expected to return to court next week, the legal battle is likely to deepen scrutiny of the MK Party’s internal governance, disciplinary processes and leadership authority, while prolonging an increasingly public power struggle within South Africa’s youngest major opposition party.
IOL News