Judge Nelisa Mali (also referred to as Judge NP Mali in some reports) issued the order after Lungisa brought an urgent application. The court directed Mbalula, the ANC, and the ANC NEC to reinstate Lungisa’s name on the party’s internal list with immediate effect. It further ordered that, if the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) allows the ANC to submit a supplementary list under Item 17(1) of Schedule 1 to the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 (for example, if the party wins more seats than it has candidates), Lungisa’s name must be included. Mbalula, the ANC, and the NEC were ordered to pay Lungisa’s legal costs (in some reports specified on the punitive attorney-and-client scale).
Background and key facts of the dispute
Lungisa, an NEC member and former Nelson Mandela Bay councillor, had topped branch nominations in the metro, been confirmed as the highest-ranked candidate at the provincial list conference, and been publicly announced by ANC president Cyril Ramaphosa as a mayoral candidate for the municipality ahead of the 4 November 2026 local government elections. His name remained on the list when the NEC finalised candidates around 27 August 2026.
On or about 28 August 2026 (the day of the IEC nomination deadline), his name was removed from the list submitted to the IEC. Lungisa alleged that Mbalula personally instructed ANC officials responsible for compiling and submitting the lists (at a meeting in Johannesburg) to remove him, claiming Lungisa would cause “problems.” He said he was confidentially informed of this by people present at the meeting. Lungisa maintained that the removal bypassed the ANC’s own multi-stage candidate selection rules, which require extended NEC approval and NEC ratification for final lists, and allow subsequent changes only on “very serious grounds” with a high threshold of agreement (reports cite 80% or 90% of the extended NEC) or in limited cases such as death, disqualification via proper vetting, or withdrawal.
The ANC’s defence centred on claims that Lungisa had not completed required vetting and biometric fingerprinting, and references to an earlier assault conviction (the “Rano matter”). Mbalula and the party denied that he acted unilaterally on personal instruction, asserting instead that an election committee made an independent adverse finding and that Mbalula merely implemented it. The court found the evidence overall supported Lungisa’s contention that he had attended the relevant vetting process. Even if some aspect remained incomplete, the respondents failed to establish that Mbalula had unilateral authority to remove a name from a finalised internal list at that late stage.
Practical implications and limitations
The ruling came too late to place Lungisa on the ballot for the 4 November 2026 elections; the court could not order the IEC to alter already-submitted lists in a manner contrary to electoral legislation. The practical effect is therefore limited to the ANC’s internal list and any post-election supplementary list the IEC may permit if the party secures more seats than listed candidates. Lungisa had emphasised in his papers that even a pure declaratory order was necessary to prevent “blatant illegality” from standing unchallenged and to protect political rights under section 19 of the Constitution (the right to participate in political party activities and to stand for public office).
The case formed part of a broader ANC candidate-list crisis in which several names (including some mayoral prospects) were omitted or altered near the IEC deadline, prompting internal blame-shifting (including allegations involving Eastern Cape provincial secretary Lulama Ngcukayitobi) and criticism of organisational processes. Eastern Cape ANC structures and some NEC members had earlier raised concerns about the handling of lists. The judgment underscores the limits on individual office-bearers overriding collective party procedures for candidate selection.
In short, the court’s finding confirms that Mbalula’s decision (or the process that produced the removal) lacked proper authority under the ANC’s rules and violated constitutional protections, requiring reinstatement on the internal list and costs against the respondents.
