King Letsitsa Moloi, representing the Bakholokoe Kingdom in the Free State and the Pan African Council of Traditional Customary Authority (Pactca), has filed urgent court papers seeking to strip the ANC top seven leaders – including President Cyril Ramaphosa – of their powers as office bearers of the party’s national executive committee.
The case, brought before the Bloemfontein High Court and set for hearing on July 24, seeks to remove the governing party’s top brass from their positions as party office bearers and to restore authority to traditional leaders.
Moloi and Pactca, an organisation of traditional and customary leaders, argue that the ANC has failed its founding mandate to restore the land and human dignity of Africans and has unlawfully stripped traditional authorities of their historical power.
The respondents named are a roll call of the ANC’s power structure: President Ramaphosa, Deputy President Paul Mashatile, chairperson Gwede Mantashe, secretary-general Fikile Mbalula, deputy secretaries-general Nomvula Mokonyane and Maropene Ramokgopa and treasurer-general Gwen Ramokgopa.
On Thursday, Ramaphosa and the ANC leadership were served a notice requiring them to explain why they should not be disqualified from leading the governing party due to their alleged failure to fulfil its founding mandate of restoring land and human dignity for Africans.
The deadline for Luthuli House to file answering affidavits is next Tuesday.
At the heart of the case is a claim that today’s ANC has deviated from its original mandate as the “national congress of the native African people” and has unlawfully stripped
traditional leadership of its historic authority.
The kings and queens (the applicants), as the ‘upper house’, were in possession or had a quasi-possession of the property.
Moloi claimed locus standi in court papers on the grounds that the ANC was formed in Thaba Nchu in 1912, which falls under his kingdom of Bakhalokoe. Further, the ANC’s 1919 constitution gave traditional leaders substantial, privileged influence and specific veto powers within the party’s early structure, making them key stakeholders and power brokers.
Moloi makes the startling claim: “I was born to this world on Thursday, the 10th day of June, 1968, as king of the Bakholokoe Kingdom, which had a peaceful and undisturbed possession of the 1st respondent’s control, management, administration and function of the executive organ as the lower house to the upper house, which is now deprived or dispossessed… who took the law into their own hands, resulting in a continued spoliation of the status quo ante of our land and dignity.”
The application, which had initially been placed on the urgent roll for hearing before the Bloemfontein High Court on May 13, 2025 – but was dismissed and now revived on the normal opposed roll – asks the court to force the ANC leadership to “show cause why an order… should not be made a final order” and demands an immediate handover of the party’s executive control to the “Upper House”, led by King Moloi.
The new notice, dated July 2, 2025, and signed by Lt-Commander Sylvester Vulani “Madala” Mangolele, specifies that the matter – while moved from the urgent roll to the opposed roll – remains “urgent in that the relief sought is a rule nisi pending”.
The court papers lay out a strict timetable for the opposing parties’ submissions, warning that failure to comply will result in the respondents being “ipso facto barred”.
Specifically, the ANC and its top seven must file answering papers by noon on July 8, with applicants replying by July 11. Heads of argument are due on July 17, and the matter is scheduled to be set down for hearing on July 18.
The applicants accused the ANC leaders of “a serious violation of the Constitution or the law”, “serious misconduct”, and “inability to perform the functions of office”. The application seeks to interdict (prevent) the ANC’s top leadership from performing or executing the control, management, administration, and functions of the executive organ until the court issues its ruling.
It further argues for the matter to be televised, citing constitutional principles: “Transparency must be fostered by providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information,” the application quotes.
