The Eastern Cape High Court in Makhanda’s judgment by Judge Vuyokazi Noncembu last week setting aside the ANC Provincial Task Team (PTT) is far more than an internal organisational dispute.
It may well prove to be one of the most significant legal interventions into ANC internal governance in the democratic era because it raises a fundamental question: can a former liberation movement that helped shape South Africa’s constitutional democracy ignore its own constitutional framework when exercising power? The court’s answer was a clear no.
At first glance, the matter appeared technical. It concerned the appointment of an interim PTT following the expiry of the term of the Eastern Cape Provincial Executive Committee (PEC).
Organisational democracy
Yet beneath the procedural arguments lay a deeper issue about legality, accountability, organisational democracy, and the rights of ANC members.
Importantly, the court did not find that the national executive committee (NEC) lacks the power to intervene in provincial structures, a right expressly guaranteed by the ANC constitution.
The judgment affirms this. But the decisive question was whether those powers were exercised lawfully and in accordance with the ANC’s own constitutional requirements. The court found they were not.
The central finding is devastating. The ANC constitution permits the appointment of an interim structure only after certain jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied.
In particular, the existing PEC must first be lawfully suspended or dissolved where necessary before a replacement structure can assume its functions. According to the judgment, that never happened.
Contradictions in explanations
Even more damaging was the court’s assessment of the explanations advanced by the respondents (the ANC, its secretary-general Fikile Mbalula, and members of the PTT, after being dragged to court by its members. Contradictory versions emerged regarding whether the PEC had in fact been dissolved before the PTT was appointed.
Initially, the argument was that dissolution was unnecessary because the PEC’s term had simply expired. Later, reliance was placed on what was presented as a resolution dissolving the PEC. The Court was not convinced.
In unusually strong language, the judgment described aspects of the evidence as “highly questionable” and rejected the contention that a lawful dissolution had occurred before the installation of the PTT.
This is not merely a disagreement over organisational procedure. It is a finding that the ANC failed to comply with the constitutional framework it adopted to regulate the exercise of power within its own ranks.
The implications extend far beyond the Eastern Cape, which lately has become the battleground for ANC legal squabbles since the interdicted provincial conference in March.
The damage did not end there. The court ultimately granted a punitive costs order against the respondents. Such orders are not awarded lightly.
They are generally reserved for conduct that attracts particular judicial disapproval. In effect, the court was not merely finding against the ANC on the law.
It was expressing dissatisfaction with the manner in which the litigation was conducted, the contradictory explanations advanced, and the circumstances that forced members to approach the courts in the first place.
Controversial use of internal structures
For years, ANC members across the country have raised concerns about the increasing use of interim structures, task teams, and administrative interventions in place of elected leadership.
Critics have argued that such practices weaken branch members’ democratic participation, centralise authority, and reduce accountability. The judgment lends judicial weight to these concerns.
Equally significant is the court’s recognition that ANC members possess enforceable rights flowing from the ANC constitution itself.
Membership is not merely a political relationship. It is also a constitutional and contractual relationship capable of judicial protection. That principle may ultimately become the most consequential aspect of the ruling. Perhaps even more important is that this judgment may only be the beginning.
Four additional cases
As matters presently stand, at least four additional cases remain before the courts in the Eastern Cape, each carrying potentially profound implications for organisational legitimacy, internal democracy, membership verification, conference outcomes, and leadership accountability.
The first is the main provincial conference matter, where the court is still expected to determine the long-term legality of the conference process itself.
The second concerns the Membership Systems and Verification Report, raising questions about how membership is recorded, audited, verified, and relied upon in organisational processes.
The third is the raw data litigation. Access to underlying membership data was previously granted by the court. Allegations now arise that the order has not been honoured, with further proceedings expected. The implications extend directly to branch meetings, delegate allocations, candidate nominations, local government representation, and the legitimacy of internal electoral processes.
The fourth concerns contempt proceedings arising from alleged non-compliance with court directives after the interim interdict in March. Should non-compliance ultimately be established, the consequences may extend beyond organisational embarrassment into the realm of judicial sanction and institutional credibility.
Taken together, these matters raise a question that reaches far beyond one province.
If courts are now willing to scrutinise not merely outcomes but the constitutional processes that produce those outcomes, then the future debate inside the ANC may no longer revolve around who won elections, conferences, or positions.
The debate may increasingly become whether the underlying membership systems, branch audits, delegate allocations, verification processes, and constitutional procedures can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Watershed for organisational constitutionalism
The Eastern Cape judgment may therefore be remembered not as a dispute about a provincial task team but as the moment when organisational constitutionalism became judicially enforceable.
That possibility should concern anyone who values democracy, accountability, and legitimacy within South Africa’s oldest liberation movement.
The ANC noted the judgment, adding that it “respects the authority and independence of the courts and is currently studying the judgment and its implications in detail” before making further comments.
It’s understood that the posture by the party’s top brass is that the ANC will follow the directives of the court and install a new PTT after following the relevant prescripts of the ANC constitution to the letter, which could include a national working committee visit to the self-proclaimed “Home of Legends” province.
In a dramatic turn of events on Tuesday, the 39 leaders appointed to the disputed PTT, with the exception of former provincial secretary Lulama Ngcukayitobi, filed a notice of application to appeal last week’s judgment, arguing that “no case was made both for interim and final relief”, adding that they believe the court erred by granting the same to the applicants.
- The Eastern Cape High Court in Makhanda’s judgment by Judge Vuyokazi Noncembu last week setting aside the ANC Provincial Task Team (PTT) is far more than an internal organisational dispute.
- It may well prove to be one of the most significant legal interventions into ANC internal governance in the democratic era because it raises a fundamental question: can a former liberation movement that helped shape South Africa’s constitutional democracy ignore its own constitutional framework when exercising power.
- The court’s answer was a clear no.
- At first glance, the matter appeared technical.
- It concerned the appointment of an interim PTT following the expiry of the term of the Eastern Cape Provincial Executive Committee (PEC).
It may well prove to be one of the most significant legal interventions into ANC internal governance in the democratic era because it raises a fundamental question: can a former liberation movement that helped shape
At first glance, the matter appeared technical. It concerned the appointment of an interim PTT following the expiry of the term of the Eastern Cape Provincial Executive Committee (PEC).
Yet beneath the procedural arguments lay a deeper issue about legality, accountability, organisational democracy, and the rights of ANC members.
Importantly, the court did not find that the national executive committee (NEC) lacks the power to intervene in provincial structures, a right expressly guaranteed by the ANC constitution.
In particular, the existing PEC must first be lawfully suspended or dissolved where necessary before a replacement structure can assume its functions.
Even more damaging was the court’s assessment of the explanations advanced by the respondents (the ANC, its secretary-general Fikile
Initially, the argument was that dissolution was unnecessary because the PEC’s term had simply expired. Later, reliance was placed on what was presented as a resolution dissolving the PEC.
In unusually strong language, the judgment described aspects of the evidence as "highly questionable" and rejected the contention that a lawful dissolution had occurred before the installation of the PTT.
It was expressing dissatisfaction with the manner in which the litigation was conducted, the contradictory explanations advanced, and the circumstances that forced members to approach the courts in the first place.
For years, ANC members across the country have raised concerns about the increasing use of interim structures, task teams, and administrative interventions in place of elected leadership.
Critics have argued that such practices weaken branch members' democratic participation, centralise authority, and reduce accountability.
Equally significant is the court’s recognition that ANC members possess enforceable rights flowing from the ANC constitution itself.
As matters presently stand, at least four additional cases remain before the courts in the Eastern Cape, each carrying potentially profound implications for organisational legitimacy, internal democracy, membership verification, conference outcomes, and leadership accountability.
Taken together, these matters raise a question that reaches far beyond one province.
If courts are now willing to scrutinise not merely outcomes but the constitutional processes that produce those outcomes, then the future debate inside the ANC may no longer revolve around who won elections, conferences, or positions.
It’s understood that the posture by the party’s top brass is that the ANC will follow the directives of the court and install a new PTT after following the relevant prescripts of the ANC constitution to the letter, which could include a national working committee visit to the self-proclaimed “Home of
In a dramatic turn of events on Tuesday, the 39 leaders appointed to the disputed PTT, with the exception of former provincial secretary Lulama
