South African court hears ANC secretary-general’s lawsuit over alleged bribery claims
A hearing was held at the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, South Africa, in a defamation case brought by African National Congress Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula against ANC National Executive Committee member Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. The lawsuit was filed after she stated in an August interview that Mbalula had allegedly paid delegates for votes at the party’s 2022 conference in Nasrec.
As Daily Maverick reports, Dlamini-Zuma also claimed that the money was allegedly used to secure Mbalula’s election as ANC secretary-general and Cyril Ramaphosa’s re-election as party president. According to her, the practice of financially influencing internal party elections had existed as far back as Ramaphosa’s 2017 campaign.
Delegate’s statement
Dlamini-Zuma’s defence submitted to the court a sworn written statement, or affidavit, by ANC delegate Mandla Themba Sibiya. He said that he personally saw Mbalula allegedly handing out money to delegates at the conference and that he himself received funds.
Dlamini-Zuma’s lawyer, Muzi Sikhakhane, called the affidavit direct evidence and said that questions concerning the document’s level of detail relate to its reliability. In his view, this should be clarified during an oral hearing with the possibility of cross-examination.
More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.
Mbalula’s representative, lawyer Smanga Seteni, objected to the use of the document. He noted that Sibiya signed the affidavit on September 4, about a month after Dlamini-Zuma’s interview. Seteni also said that neither Sibiya nor Dlamini-Zuma had reported the alleged payments to the police or ANC structures.
Distribution of the interview
Seteni questioned Sibiya’s assertion that he “saw everything,” as, in the lawyer’s opinion, the statement contains no specific description of what was seen. The judge pointed out that the affidavit contains no reference to the ongoing court case, but said that the document could not simply be dismissed.
The parties also argued over possible further harm from the statements. Mbalula’s representative said that the interview, published on YouTube, had been rebroadcast by SABC and e.tv and could continue to spread. Dlamini-Zuma’s defence insisted that there was no evidence of her intent to repeat the claims, while Mbalula’s side referred to her position that she stands by them. The court postponed its decision.
