ANC National Executive Committee member Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has expressed satisfaction with a High Court decision rejecting an application by ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula to compel her to withdraw statements and issue an apology.
The matter was heard by Acting Judge HM Viljoen after Mbalula approached the court over remarks Dlamini-Zuma made during an interview on the African Renaissance Podcast. During the discussion, she alleged that money had been used to influence votes at the ANC’s 2022 elective conference, where Mbalula was elected Secretary-General.
Mbalula sought a court order requiring Dlamini-Zuma to retract the statements. However, the court declined to issue the order, ruling instead that important factual disputes surrounding the case should be resolved through oral evidence.
As a result, both Dlamini-Zuma and Mbalula are expected to give evidence under oath and undergo cross-examination. Additional witnesses could also be called if the court permits them to participate in the proceedings.
Responding to the judgment, Dlamini-Zuma said she was satisfied with the direction taken by the court.
“I welcome the judgment which directs, as I respectfully submitted, that the matter is better determined by way of oral evidence,” she said.
She also indicated that she would continue cooperating with the judicial process as the case progresses.
Dlamini-Zuma used the opportunity to raise broader concerns about internal party elections, particularly the influence of financial resources in leadership contests.
“If the ANC is to renew itself, it must confront the use of money in its internal elective processes honestly,” she stated.
The former minister said she would refrain from commenting further on the specifics of the case publicly, explaining that she wanted to respect the court proceedings.
The dispute originated from comments made during an August podcast appearance, when Dlamini-Zuma spoke about allegations that money was being used to secure support during ANC conferences. Mbalula has rejected the allegations and maintains that the remarks were defamatory.