First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

The ANC ‘messed up’ Ace’s suspension big time, Da...

South Africa


The ANC ‘messed up’ Ace’s suspension big time, Dali Mpofu tells Johannesburg High Court

Suspended ANC secretary-general Ace Magashule. (Photo: Gallo Images / Alon Skuy) | Deputy secretary-general Jessie Duarte. (Photo: Waldo Swiegers / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Ace Magashule’s suspension is unconstitutional and his deputy Jessie Duarte did not have the right to suspend him, court hears in first day’s evidence.

The ANC violated the Constitution again and again in the way in which it suspended its Secretary-General Ace Magashule in May, Magashule’s advocate Dali Mpofu told the Johannesburg High Court in five hours of argument on Thursday.

Magashule sat pensively behind Mpofu for the entire day’s virtual hearing, except when he went to address a rally outside the court. He was visible at the Microsoft Teams hearing — his presence a testament to how critically important this hearing is for the strongman politician who has only ever worked for or represented the ANC.  

The ANC suspended Magashule in May 2021 in line with a resolution taken at its Nasrec conference in 2017 that said any member or leader accused of serious corruption should step aside. The resolution was subsequently narrowed to read that only members or leaders criminally charged in these matters should do so.

Magashule is so focused on campaigning against his suspension that his supporters organised a Johannesburg rally on the day the city and the province notched up their highest numbers of Covid-19 infections yet. 

At the virtual hearing, Mpofu said the suspension stripped Magashule of several constitutional rights, including his fundamental rights contained in the Bill of Rights. 

“If an ANC law (its party constitution in this case) limits rights in the Bill of Rights, the court has no option but to declare that conduct invalid,” argued Mpofu. He said Magashule’s rights to be heard, equality before the law, his rights to dignity and work, and others, had been violated by the ANC’s action.

Political party members have taken their issues to court before, said Judge Jody Kollapen, adding that courts had found that parties had contractual relationships with their members. The court had to establish whether these contracts infringed constitutional rights — the case is likely to pivot on the interplay between party contracts with its members and the country’s Constitution. 

Judge Edwin Molahlehi said Magashule’s step-aside was a suspensive condition pending something happening later on — a reference to the outcome of the corruption case he faces in connection with a R236-million asbestos audit in the Free State. 

Employees or party members were sometimes suspended on a precautionary basis. Still, Mpofu replied that if that was the case, then the party should have held a pre-suspension hearing for Magashule. It had not done so.

Judge Sharise Weiner asked if the fact that Magashule had appeared before the party’s integrity commission could be taken as an instance of fair process. If not, she said, “the party would then not be able to suspend anyone.”

Mpofu said that the party’s rule 25.7, which governs the step-aside process, should be thrown out because it did not provide for a hearing for the presumption of innocence or an appeal.

“You turn right, it has been breached; you turn left, it has been breached,” said Mpofu, about Magashule’s various rights both as an ANC member and as an employee.

A Constitutional Court judgment against Magashule is, ironically, being used extensively in his defence.

In 2012, Mpofu acted for ANC Free State member Mpho Ramakatsa, who argued before the Constitutional Court that the party had violated his rights. In their judgment, Judges Dikgang Moseneke and Chris Jafta said that the constitutions and other rules of political parties must be consistent with the Constitution of the Republic. 

They said that in regulating their internal affairs, political parties must facilitate the exercise of political rights entrenched in the Constitution, according to a judgment summary.

“A political party is not just a soccer club… it is the construction through which people exercise their political rights,” said Mpofu, as he concluded the argument for Magashule’s reinstatement.

Advocate Wim Trengove takes up the baton for the ANC on Friday. DM


Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 6

  • Mpofu, stuttering in his a-typical attack, will loose this case, like so many answers. Today is the turn of Wim Trengrove, one of the sharpest legal minds this country has seen for the last 40 years, and probably the top attorney in South Africa. And he won’t spend a day rambling along trying to find a gap. In his relatively quiet way he will argue the points that matters. My take: Magashule, your time is up, forever!

  • Rudi Giuliani, Trump’s Counsel has been disbarred from practising as a lawyer because of all the lies he spread during the Trump wannabe regime. What a real tragedy that our own Law Society has not the gumption to call its advocates to order. The kind of arguments put up by some representing the dodgy parade of wannabe politicians range from embarrassing to ludicrous, twisting and turning on emotive language at the most simplistic level, appealing to political affiliation rather than arguing points of law. Some of these so-called advocates descend to crass vulgarity and outright bullying. Where is the Law Society? The should carry out regular audits on at least the public performance – and performance it is – of their members. Kids watching these antics in court on TV will be seriously damaged.

    • Remember, no less a constitutional law expert than Pierre Vos has indicated that Mpofu is a shrewd (in more ways than one) operator, whose ‘political’ ambitions exceed his legal ones. Your reference to ‘performance’ is a significant part of that modus operandi. It is going to take a very brave and scholarly group of person/s who would ‘confront’ such ‘lawfare’. Not only is it embedded in small sections of the attorney/advocate profession, but even at the judge level. The DM publication has drawn our attention to it especially regarding a Western Cape instance. These are typical examples of how the exemplars see their personal ‘reputation’ (however they conceive it – cult may be a more apt description) as being more important than that of the profession ! Ethics are secondary or possibly irrelevant! I think it could best be described at dealing with psychopathic personalities.

  • Dellarose, I think the answer that you’re looking for is that the various Law Societies consist of bigger skelms than the people they’re protecting.

  • that’s really funny: “A political party is […] through which people exercise their political rights”, considering the countless examples of political persons ‘exercising’ personal self enrichment through corrupt means to the detriment of the citizens / farmers et al they swore to serve and protect. And then… certain individuals look to defend of such political persons… c’mon !

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted