- The ANC chose to replace its preferred branch candidate, Anele Gabuza, with Yanga Mjingwana as the Ward 98 candidate in Khayelitsha.
- The judge concluded that Gabuza did not prove the ANC’s higher structures acted unlawfully or broke the party’s candidate selection rules.
- The application asking the Electoral Commission to register Gabuza was filed too late, as the candidate lists had already been certified and ballot papers were being printed.
The ANC’s decision to replace its preferred branch candidate for Ward 98 in Khayelitsha has survived a legal challenge by serving Cape Town councillor Anele Gabuza, who sought to overturn the nomination and reclaim his place on the party’s candidate list.
In a judgment delivered on 19 October 2026, Judge D Thulare dismissed Gabuza’s urgent application, finding that he had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the ANC’s candidate-selection structures acted unlawfully. The judge also found that the application came too late to compel the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) to amend its certified candidate lists ahead of the local government elections.
Branch vote did not settle the nomination
Gabuza, an ANC member active in the Tweni Zenzile Branch, argued that his removal as the party’s Ward 98 candidate was unlawful. He sought an order declaring the decision invalid, setting it aside and reinstating him as the candidate, with the IEC directed to register him.
He maintained that he had received the highest number of votes at the branch’s final general meeting on 8 July 2026. He alleged that his subsequent removal and replacement by Mjingwana had been carried out “clandestinely, arbitrarily, and unlawfully”.
Gabuza also argued that the ANC structure responsible for the decision lacked the authority to remove him and had failed to follow the party’s election rules. He said he had not been given reasons for his removal or an opportunity to make representations before the decision was taken.
The ANC and its secretary-general, Fikile Mbalula, initially indicated that they would oppose the application but withdrew their opposition on the morning of the hearing. They urged Gabuza to withdraw the matter without seeking costs and to use the party’s internal processes to address the eligibility of both candidates.
The IEC opposed only the relief sought against it. Mjingwana and the South African National Civic Organisation did not file opposing papers.
Judge questions branch leadership’s approach
Judge Thulare examined the ANC’s 2026 Local Government Elections and Candidate Selection Rules, Guidelines and Procedures, which provide for a multi-stage process involving branch nominations, community participation, screening and vetting, provincial ratification and final approval by the party’s national structures.
The guidelines state that the candidate who receives the most votes at the branch general meeting becomes the preferred ward candidate unless screening and vetting raise serious concerns. The name must then proceed through the party’s higher structures for consideration and approval.
The judge found that the branch executive committee had misunderstood its role by attempting to exclude Mjingwana rather than submitting relevant information to the structures responsible for screening and vetting.
The branch had raised concerns about whether Mjingwana held a matric certificate and alleged that he had a previous criminal conviction. However, Gabuza did not establish under oath that Mjingwana lacked a matric qualification.
The guidelines allow the matric requirement to be waived in exceptional circumstances. Judge Thulare found that determining whether a candidate met the eligibility requirements, including checks relating to qualifications and criminal records, fell within the responsibilities of the designated vetting structures.
“The BEC should have forwarded the information to the PLC as part of the portfolio of evidence that the PLC was to consider,” the judge said, referring to the branch executive committee and the Provincial List Committee.
He found that the branch had overreached by seeking to discredit Mjingwana and determine his eligibility outside the prescribed process.
The guidelines also sought to balance skills and experience with community support and representation. The judge said the branch had failed to appreciate the broader objectives of the candidate-selection process.
Community meeting favoured Mjingwana
The judgment set out the voting figures from the different stages of the selection process. At the initial branch meeting on 16 June 2026, Gabuza received 58 votes, Mjingwana 36, Yoliswa Ndyalvan 24 and Funeka Mpeta two.
At a subsequent community meeting attended by 468 people, 389 voted. Mjingwana received 202 votes, Gabuza 181 and Ndyalvan five. The judgment recorded no vote for Mpeta. At the final branch general meeting on 8 July, Gabuza received 74 votes and Ndyalvan 24. Mjingwana received no votes at that meeting.
Judge Thulare noted that Gabuza had received the strongest support at the final branch meeting, but Mjingwana had been preferred by the community at the earlier public meeting.
The judge found that the branch’s preference did not, by itself, establish that the ANC’s subsequent decision was unlawful. Gabuza needed to show that the party’s higher structures had failed to comply with the applicable rules or that the decision was otherwise unlawful. “The fact that Gabuza and the BEC were not happy with the decision, but that is no ground to review that decision,” the judgment stated.
The judge also noted that Gabuza had not addressed whether he had undergone the required screening and vetting or whether his performance as a serving councillor had been assessed in accordance with the guidelines.
IEC could not be compelled to amend certified lists
Gabuza also sought an order directing the IEC to register him as the ANC’s Ward 98 candidate. The commission argued that the relief was no longer practically achievable because the nomination process had concluded, the candidate lists had been certified, and ballot papers were being printed.
The electoral timetable required political parties to submit candidate nominations by 28 August 2026. The IEC certified the candidate lists on 16 September, and candidate certificates were issued on 25 September, when ballot-paper printing began.
Gabuza had been informed on 26 August that Mjingwana had been nominated. An earlier urgent application to prevent the IEC from certifying the candidate was struck off the roll on 7 September. Gabuza withdrew that application on 8 October before bringing the present proceedings.
Judge Thulare found that Gabuza had approached the IEC dispute too late to require the commission to amend the certified lists and redesign and reprint ballot papers. The judge noted that Gabuza had not alleged that the IEC acted unlawfully when it certified the lists, nor had he sought an order setting aside the commission’s certification decision.
The judgment emphasised that electoral disputes should be brought at the earliest available opportunity because of their potential impact on the election process. The judge was not persuaded that Mjingwana’s inclusion on the candidate list would undermine the freeness, fairness or credibility of the elections.
The urgent application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
