The battle for the soul of the MK Party has exploded into the courts, with expelled party heavyweights Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla and Nhlamulo Ndhlela hauling secretary-general Sibonelo Nomvalo before the Johannesburg High Court and accusing him of acting beyond his powers in one of the most dramatic internal showdowns since the party’s formation.
In an urgent application filed on Thursday, the pair seek to overturn their expulsions and secure their immediate reinstatement as MK members. Significantly, Nomvalo is not only cited in his official capacity as secretary-general, but also in his personal capacity to the extent that he may have acted outside the powers granted to him by the party’s constitution.
The court challenge follows a bombshell media briefing on June 18 during which Nomvalo announced that Zuma-Sambudla, the daughter of former president Jacob Zuma, and former national spokesperson Ndhlela had been expelled from the party with immediate effect.
‘Expulsions unlawful’
The applicants argue that the expulsions were unlawful, unconstitutional and procedurally defective from the outset.
At the heart of their challenge is the allegation that MK leaders bypassed every safeguard contained in the party’s own constitution before terminating their membership.
According to the court papers, no formal complaint was lodged, no charges were served, no disciplinary hearing was convened and no findings were made by the National Disciplinary Committee.
Instead, the pair claim they learnt they had been expelled through television screens, news reports and social media.
“The Applicants were expelled by means of a public media briefing, without charges, without notice, and without any hearing whatsoever. The decision is therefore unlawful on its face,” the application states.
The papers repeatedly refer to the process as an “expulsion by press conference”, arguing that such a procedure does not exist anywhere in the MK constitution.
Ndhela’s parly seat in balance
For Ndhlela, the matter carries potentially career-ending consequences.
As a sitting Member of Parliament, he argues that his National Assembly seat depends entirely on his membership of the MK Party. If the expulsion stands, the party could notify Parliament that his membership has been terminated, potentially triggering the process to remove him from the legislature.
“The only effective protection against my removal from the National Assembly is an order of this court reviewing and setting aside the purported expulsion,” Ndhlela states.
‘Will of voters undermined’
He warns that allowing the decision to stand would not only affect him personally but could also undermine the will of voters who elected him under the MK banner.
The applicants also attack the legal foundation relied upon to justify their expulsions.
According to the papers, Nomvalo cited “Section 2(h)” of the MK constitution as the source of authority for the decision. The problem, they argue, is that no such provision exists.
The application states that the actual presidential decree clause appears elsewhere in the constitution and does not grant authority to expel non-probationary members.
In a particularly pointed attack, the applicants argue that a decision based on a non-existent constitutional provision is irrational, unlawful and liable to be set aside.
Zuma-Sambudla cites reputational damage
Zuma-Sambudla’s urgency case centres on the political consequences of being frozen out of party structures as preparations intensify for the upcoming November 4 local government elections.
She argues that every day the expulsion remains in place causes continuing damage to her political standing, reputation and participation in key organisational decisions, including candidate-selection processes.
The papers also reject allegations that she improperly interfered in matters involving the late MK MP Mzikayise Ntshingila, arguing that no impartial investigation was ever conducted before the accusations were used against her.
The court application now sets the stage for what could become one of the most consequential legal battles in the MK Party’s short but turbulent history, with the party’s disciplinary powers, internal governance and leadership authority all likely to come under judicial scrutiny.
Although courts generally take a dim view on urgency, should the Johannesburg High Court rule in favour of Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela, the judgment could strike at the very process used to purge two of the most recognisable faces in Jacob Zuma’s political movement.
- Expelled MK Party members Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla and Nhlamulo Ndhlela have filed an urgent court application to overturn their expulsions, accusing secretary-general Sibonelo Nomvalo of exceeding his constitutional powers.
- The expulsions reportedly occurred without formal complaints, charges, disciplinary hearings, or findings, with the pair learning of their removals via media rather than due process.
- Ndhlela, a sitting MP, contends his parliamentary seat is at risk as it relies on his MK membership, and a court ruling overturning the expulsion is essential to protect his position.
- The applicants challenge the legal basis for the expulsions, highlighting that the cited constitutional clause does not exist, rendering the expulsions unlawful and irrational.
- Zuma-Sambudla emphasizes reputational harm and exclusion from party activities ahead of local elections, calling into question the fairness of investigations against her and the party's internal disciplinary procedures.
In an urgent application filed on
At the heart of their challenge is the allegation that MK leaders bypassed every safeguard contained in the party's own constitution before terminating their membership.
Instead, the pair claim they learnt they had been expelled through television screens, news reports and social media.
"
For
As a sitting
"
He warns that allowing the decision to stand would not only affect him personally but could also undermine the will of voters who elected him under the MK banner.
In a particularly pointed attack, the applicants argue that a decision based on a non-existent constitutional provision is irrational, unlawful and liable to be set aside.
Zuma-
