African National Congress (ANC) National Executive Committee member Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has welcomed a High Court ruling dismissing an application by party Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula, who sought to force her to retract her public statements and issue an apology.
The ruling was delivered by Acting Judge HM Viljoen following a legal application by Mbalula over comments Dlamini-Zuma made during an interview on the African Renaissance Podcast. During the discussion, she alleged that money had been used to influence delegates at the ANC’s 2022 elective conference, where Mbalula was elected Secretary-General.
The court declined to grant the relief Mbalula had requested. Instead, Judge Viljoen ruled that the key factual disputes between the two parties should be examined through oral evidence. As a result, both Dlamini-Zuma and Mbalula are expected to testify under oath and face cross-examination. Other witnesses may also be called, subject to the court’s approval.
Reacting to the decision, Dlamini-Zuma expressed satisfaction with the court’s approach, saying it supported her position that the matter would be better resolved through oral testimony.
She further confirmed that she would continue to cooperate with the legal proceedings but would avoid making public comments about the specifics of the case while it remains before the court.
Beyond the legal dispute, Dlamini-Zuma argued that the allegations highlighted broader concerns about the conduct of internal party elections. She stressed that the ANC must openly address the role of money in its electoral processes if it hopes to achieve meaningful renewal.
The disagreement stems from remarks she made during a podcast interview in August, in which she discussed allegations of financial inducements being used to gain support in ANC leadership contests. Mbalula has denied the claims and argues that the statements damaged his reputation.
The latest court decision moves the case toward a hearing where the evidence and accounts of both ANC leaders will be examined under oath. The proceedings are likely to draw public interest as the court considers the allegations and the responses presented by the parties.
