South African High Court: ANC Ordered to Reinstate Andile Lungisa

In South Africa, on Friday, 9 October, the High Court ordered the African National Congress (ANC) to reinstate Andile Lungisa to its Nelson Mandela Bay proportional representation candidate list, ruling his removal unlawful and unconstitutional and directing the party to pay his legal costs. This significant judgment found that the ANC had failed to provide adequate justification for removing Lungisa from its candidate list shortly before the candidate-nomination deadline for the upcoming local government elections. Judge Nelisa Mali specifically ordered the ANC to place Lungisa back on its internal list and to submit his name to the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) if the relevant electoral laws allowed for such a supplementary submission.

This ruling carries substantial legal significance for political parties, electoral processes, and individual candidates in South Africa, particularly in the context of internal party democracy and the right to participate in elections. It underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinising internal party decisions that impact fundamental rights, even when those decisions pertain to candidate selection, which is often considered an internal party matter. The key parties involved were Andile Lungisa, who successfully challenged his removal, and the African National Congress, which was found to have acted unlawfully. While Lungisa had accused ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula of orchestrating his removal, the court did not find Mbalula personally liable, focusing instead on the party's procedural failures. The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) is also a key player, as the judgment's implementation hinges on its regulations regarding candidate list submissions.

The legal context for this decision is rooted in South Africa's constitutional framework, which guarantees political rights, including the right to stand for public office, and the principle of legality, which requires all exercises of public power, including by political parties in certain contexts, to be lawful. The court's finding that the ANC's decision was "unlawful and unconstitutional" suggests a reliance on principles of administrative justice, even if applied to an internal party process, and potentially the electoral laws governing candidate nominations. While specific statutes are not cited in the excerpt, the Electoral Act and the Constitution's provisions on political rights (Section 19) would form the bedrock of such a challenge. The High Court, as a superior court of general jurisdiction, has the authority to review the legality and constitutionality of decisions made by various bodies, including political parties, when those decisions affect fundamental rights or public interest. The judgment also comes amidst the ANC's broader legal challenges concerning the exclusion of 181 of its candidates by the IEC, a matter currently before the Constitutional Court, highlighting the complex interplay between internal party processes, electoral law, and judicial oversight.

Practising attorneys and legal professionals advising political parties, candidates, or electoral bodies in South Africa should closely monitor the implications of this High Court judgment. It serves as a critical reminder that even internal party decisions, particularly those affecting candidate selection and participation in elections, are not immune from judicial review if they are found to be unlawful or unconstitutional. Parties must ensure their candidate selection processes are transparent, fair, and adhere to their own internal rules, as well as broader constitutional principles, to avoid costly and reputation-damaging legal challenges. Furthermore, practitioners should advise clients on the strict deadlines and procedural requirements of the Electoral Commission, as the ability to implement court orders like this one can be constrained by electoral timelines and regulations. The ongoing Constitutional Court matter regarding the IEC's exclusion of other ANC candidates also warrants attention, as it could further clarify the boundaries of judicial intervention in electoral disputes and party autonomy.