Staff Reporter
The National Executive Committee (NEC) of the ANC is set to have an urgent meeting after the party’s provincial conference for the Free State held in 2018 was nullified by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on Wednesday.
In a statement, ANC national spokesperson Pule Mabe called for calm among members in the province as the party studies the judgment before deciding the way forward.
“The National Executive Committee will convene urgently to give direction,” Mabe said in the statement.
“We call on ANC structures in the province to remain disciplined and calm, whilst we study the judgment and its implications for the movement, and in particular the Provincial Executive Committee (PEC) elected at the conference,” he added.
In its ruling, the SCA declared the provincial conference unlawful and unconstitutional.
It said the conference held from 18-19 May, 2018 was in violation of a court order given on November 29, 2017.
This means the decisions/resolutions and/or the outcome of the conference are unlawful and unconstitutional.
The court however ruled that decisions made by the PEC before the delivery of the judgment will not be affected.
The matter was brought to the SCA by three disgruntled ANC members, Matshepo Ramakatsa, Themba Mvandaba and Shashapa Joshua Motaung.
The respondents to the matter were listed as members of the ANC in the Free State and the PEC respectively.
The trio wanted the appeal court to declare that the ANC provincial conference that took place on 18 and 19 May, 2018 was held in violation of a High Court order dated November 29, 2017.
They argued that the conference’s decision/resolutions and/or outcome were unlawful and unconstitutional.
The appellants also sought a declaration that the respondents acted in contempt of the High Court order.
The High Court had made an order that the provincial conference should not be held until certain branch general meetings (BGMs) had been held in a lawful manner that accords with the constitution of the ANC.
The members, according to the judgment, had contended that their rights in terms of section 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa had been infringed and that the respondents had breached the provisions of the ANC Constitution and National Guidelines which mirror the ANC Constitution on elections.
The contention by the appellants was that as provided in the ANC guidelines, at the heart of any lawfully convened conference of the ANC, whether at the regional, provincial or national level, is the basic requirement that delegates participating at such gatherings must have been elected at properly constituted BGMs.
The judgment said the rationale behind the contention was that if persons who participated at such a conference as delegates, who had not been elected at properly constituted BMGs, or if delegates who have been elected at properly constituted BGMs are denied such participation in a conference, any decision to hold such conference is invalid and the outcomes of such a conference are equally invalid and null and void.
“At least eight of the 28 BGMs identified in the (High Court) order did not take place lawfully or at all,” read part of the judgment.
“On this basis alone, the (provincial conference) could not lawfully proceed,” the SCA found.
The respondents however argued that the disgruntled members rushed to court before exhausting available internal remedy mechanisms within the party.
It emerged in court that the aggrieved members sent a complaint to that provincial conference but they were ignored.
The respondents’ argument that branch audits were done ahead of the conference could not hold as some had been held more than nine months earlier.
“. . . one must mention that both respondents’ versions are undermined by the attendance registers . . . These attendance registers show that in respect of all branches the last audit was conducted in April 2017,” the SCA found.
“Therefore, the required audit was conducted more than nine months before the (provincial conference) and contrary to the assertion that an audit was conducted during February 2018.
“The failure of the respondents to respond squarely and with sufficient details to allegations made by the appellants, the contradictions between the two versions presented by the respondents, and the effect of the attendance registers leads to the ineluctable conclusion that there has been no compliance with the peremptory audit requirement.”