ANC veteran Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has doubled down on her explosive allegations that ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula used money to buy votes at the party’s 2022 national elective conference, insisting in court papers that she was speaking the truth.
Dlamini-Zuma has filed a responding affidavit in the Johannesburg High Court opposing Mbalula’s defamation application, arguing that the case is an attempt to drag what she considers an internal ANC political matter into the courts.
The legal battle stems from remarks Dlamini-Zuma made during an interview with former EFF MP Mbuyiseni Ndlozi on the African Renaissance Podcast in August.
During the interview, she alleged that Mbalula was “dishing” out money at a clinic during the ANC’s 2022 conference at Nasrec to secure his election as secretary-general and help ensure Cyril Ramaphosa’s re-election as ANC president. Mbalula has denied the allegations and described them as defamatory.
In her affidavit, which Africa Daily has seen, Dlamini-Zuma maintains that the allegations were not fabricated and claims she has evidence and witnesses who can substantiate her version.
She claims there was a queue at the clinic, not of patients, but of people waiting to receive cash allegedly being distributed by Mbalula to influence the conference outcome.
She further claims that a delegate who was present at the clinic during the 2022 conference has provided a confirmatory affidavit supporting her account.
Dlamini-Zuma identifies the delegate as Themba Mandla Sibiya, saying he and other conference delegates witnessed the alleged distribution of money at the clinic.
She also claims that a doctor who witnessed the commotion at the clinic has provided an affidavit relating to the incident.
According to Dlamini-Zuma, there are other people within the ANC who witnessed what allegedly happened but are reluctant to come forward because they fear for their safety.
She argues that the issue extends beyond Mbalula and forms part of a broader problem of money influencing leadership contests within the ANC.
“The ANC itself is on record lamenting the destructive role of money in its elective conferences,” Dlamini-Zuma states in her affidavit.
She points to the 2017 and 2022 national conferences and argues that the use of money to influence conference outcomes undermines the democratic process within the governing party.
Dlamini-Zuma also refers to the controversy surrounding the CR17 campaign funding and the public debate over the role of money in the ANC’s 2017 leadership contest.
She argues that she raised Mbalula’s alleged conduct not to single him out, but to highlight what she describes as the need for the renewal of the ANC and the restoration of its moral trajectory.
She further accuses Mbalula of bringing the dispute to court despite his position as ANC secretary-general and his responsibility for the party’s internal processes.
Dlamini-Zuma describes his application as “misconceived” and an abuse of the judicial process, arguing that the matter should instead be dealt with through the ANC’s own structures.
She also challenges Mbalula’s decision to pursue the matter on an urgent basis, pointing out that the podcast was published on 3 August and that he waited 18 days before launching the court proceedings.
Dlamini-Zuma says Mbalula’s alleged delay undermines his claim that the matter is urgent.
On the defamation claim itself, she raises truth and public interest as a defence.
She argues that she did not accuse Mbalula of money laundering, fraud, theft or corruption, but spoke about what she says she observed and what had been publicly reported.
Mbalula, however, has emphatically denied distributing money to delegates and has said he was elected at the 2022 conference through a legitimate secret ballot.
Dlamini-Zuma is asking the court to dismiss Mbalula’s application with costs.
The case now places allegations about the influence of money in ANC leadership contests before the courts, with Dlamini-Zuma effectively challenging Mbalula to prove that her claims were defamatory while maintaining that they were truthful and in the public interest.
