The African National Congress and uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK Party) remain at loggerheads over having a physical disciplinary hearing of former President Jacob Zuma.
This as the ANC insisted that the National Disciplinary Committee hearing, which was held today, be conducted on a virtual platform.
Former ANC NEC member Tony Yengeni appeared on behalf of Zuma at the hearing today.
In a statement, MK Party said they had received a positive response from Yengeni. He reportedly attended the hearing alone, to show that Zuma preferred a physical venue meeting.
Yengeni reported on the meeting
Nhlamulo Ndhlela, MK Party spokesperson, said Yengeni also reported on the meeting conclusion. He reported that the national disciplinary committee also granted postponement of the hearing. This to allow Yengeni time to engage Zuma on the outcomes.
The two parties agreed that the pre-hearing will be held on July 18. While the official hearing will be held on July 23.
During this time, Zuma is expected to further engage with his representatives and relevant stakeholders. The engagement will be to decide on a way forward.
“Until then, he remains of the strongest view that in these exceptional circumstances, the hearing should not only be physical, but that it should also be opened to the public,” reads the statement in part.
MK wants a public hearing, ANC does not
“Due to the understandable public interest and enquiries we are receiving on this matter, we will continuously update our members and the public on any new developments. This regarding President Zuma and this unfortunate harassment by the sell-out ANC of Ramaphosa,” statement continues.
Ndhlela said the ANC should not hide the proceedings of the matter unless they had something to hide.
Zalo Godlimpi, ANC acting national spokesperson, said the ANC would not allow the disciplinary hearing on public platforms.
“Neither pre-hearing conference nor the actual disciplinary hearing will be open to the public or the media. A verdict will be announced once the committee has received and reviewed all arguments,” said Godlimbi.
“We cannot specify the timeline for this process. It depends on the scope of the deliberations and the issues under consideration.”
