The ANC and its secretary-general, Fikile Mbalula, have filed a formal notice to withdraw from appealing the judgment that halted the Eastern Cape ANC provincial conference.
The application for leave to appeal at the KuGompo High Court, initially lodged to have the decision to interdict the conference reversed, will, because of this withdrawal, crumble.
“Kindly take notice that the second (ANC) and third (Mbalula) respondents hereby withdraw their application for leave to appeal,” reads the notice filed on Wednesday.
Withdrawal raises eyebrows
This single act is determinative. In law, particularly in motion proceedings, a decision to seek leave to appeal an interim order is not taken lightly.
It is grounded in the existence of reasonable prospects that another court would arrive at a different conclusion or that there exists a compelling reason to escalate the matter.
To initiate that process and then abandon it is evidence that speaks directly to the quality of judgement that informed the initial decision.
The initial filing signalled confidence, an intention to contest, to escalate, and to overturn.
It suggested that those advising the course believed the threshold for appeal had been met and could withstand scrutiny. The withdrawal reverses that position entirely.
It sends signals, with clarity, that either the legal threshold was never met, the risks of proceeding became unsustainable, or the internal political will to continue collapsed under pressure.
Each of these conclusions leads to the same destination: a failure at the level of judgement, legal, political, or both.
High-risk strategic move
Appealing an interim order is a high-risk strategic move. Courts are generally reluctant to entertain appeals on interlocutory matters unless the order has a final effect or carries irreparable consequences.
The bar is deliberately high to prevent litigation from becoming a tactical delay mechanism or a tool of procedural manoeuvring. To pursue such an appeal without meeting this standard is ill-advised.
To withdraw it thereafter makes things bizarre, if not ludicrous. It confirms, in effect, that the standard could not be defended in law or sustained in strategy.
Was there a sound legal basis
The question, therefore, is who took the initial decision, on what legal basis, and with what level of political mandate and or authority.
Was the advice sound and tested against the threshold required for appealing an interim order, or was it advanced prematurely and accepted without sufficient scrutiny? And crucially, at what level within the leadership structures was this decision interrogated before it was allowed to proceed?
The immediate damage is not legal but political. Those who aligned themselves, publicly or internally, with the initial decision now find themselves exposed.
Miscalculated misfire
In factional terms, this is not a disagreement but rather a bad miscalculated misfire.
A position was advanced, support was mobilised, expectation was created, and then, without resolution or vindication, it was withdrawn.
The result is predictable, which is a loss of strategic coherence, erosion of internal confidence, and a weakening of the command structure that initiated the move.
In movements such as the ANC that are defined by alignment, discipline, and perception of strength, such moments are not easily absorbed or quickly forgotten.
Reflection on secretary-general’s office
Timing intensifies consequences. In an election year, every visible action is interpreted as a signal of capacity, coherence, and leadership strength. The ability to take a position and sustain it is read as authority against an inability to do so, which is read as uncertainty.
This withdrawal lands in a political environment already defined by contested public confidence, economic pressure, and heightened scrutiny of leadership decisions. Against that backdrop, the reversal reinforces a narrative that is increasingly difficult to contain, which is that decision-making at the centre is reactive rather than strategic.
This decision carries a lot of damage that can manifest across other provinces in litigations under way, and more worrisome is whether the secretary-general’s office (SGO) has the capacity to run that office effectively and efficiently.
Or it may as well be about whether the secretary-general has any credibility left from this litigation.
But one thing is certain: the applicants now will have to argue before the court against the remaining respondents, which are provincial secretary Lulama Ngcukayitobi and the provincial executive committee (PEC), on why the judgement should not be made permanent.
It is highly impossible that the remaining respondents can argue a winnable case without the SGO that had centralised the very process.
- The ANC and Secretary General Fikile Mbalula have formally withdrawn their application for leave to appeal the judgement halting the Eastern Cape ANC provincial conference.
- This withdrawal causes their initial appeal at the KuGompo High Court to collapse, indicating a retreat from contesting the interdict.
- The move signals potential misjudgment politically and legally, suggesting the initial decision lacked sound legal basis or internal political support.
- The withdrawal damages the ANC’s internal cohesion, credibility, and leadership perception, especially in a crucial election year.
- The remaining respondents, provincial secretary Lulama Ngcukayitobi and the provincial executive committee, must now defend the judgement without the Secretary General’s office support, making their case difficult to win.
“
It is grounded in the existence of reasonable prospects that another court would arrive at a different conclusion or that there exists a compelling reason to escalate the matter.
To initiate that process and then abandon it is evidence that speaks directly to the quality of judgement that informed the initial decision.
It suggested that those advising the course believed the threshold for appeal had been met and could withstand scrutiny.
It sends signals, with clarity, that either the legal threshold was never met, the risks of proceeding became unsustainable, or the internal political will to continue collapsed under pressure.
Each of these conclusions leads to the same destination: a failure at the level of judgement, legal, political, or both.
To withdraw it thereafter makes things bizarre, if not ludicrous. It confirms, in effect, that the standard could not be defended in law or sustained in strategy.
Was the advice sound and tested against the threshold required for appealing an interim order, or was it advanced prematurely and accepted without sufficient scrutiny?
In factional terms, this is not a disagreement but rather a bad miscalculated misfire.
A position was advanced, support was mobilised, expectation was created, and then, without resolution or vindication, it was withdrawn.
In movements such as the ANC that are defined by alignment, discipline, and perception of strength, such moments are not easily absorbed or quickly forgotten.
Or it may as well be about whether the secretary-general has any credibility left from this litigation.
But one thing is certain: the applicants now will have to argue before the court against the remaining respondents, which are provincial secretary Lulama
It is highly impossible that the remaining respondents can argue a winnable case without the SGO that had centralised the very process.
