Mbalula vs Dlamini-Zuma: Judgment Reserved in the ANC Vote-Buying Defamation Case

The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg reserved judgment on Tuesday 15 September 2026 in the defamation case ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula brought against ANC National Executive Committee member Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.

Two of the governing party's most senior figures spent the day arguing about money, about the limits of motion proceedings, and about whether one delegate's affidavit is enough to force a trial. Nothing has been proved. No court has established Mbalula's allegations against her, and no court has established her allegations about him.

Judgment Reserved After a Day of Sharp Exchanges

SABC News, Daily Maverick and The Citizen all reported that judgment was reserved the same day. Dlamini-Zuma attended court with family members and supporters. The argument ran from whether Sibiya's statement had enough detail in it to whether a public figure can ever be ordered to say sorry.

What Mbalula Is Asking the Court to Do

Mbalula brought an urgent application for an interdict. He wants the court to declare the statements false and defamatory, to compel Dlamini-Zuma to retract them and formally apologise to him, and to grant a punitive costs order against her. He has also indicated he will pursue the matter through the ANC's Integrity Commission, chaired by Frank Chikane.

At a media briefing at Luthuli House on Tuesday 8 September, he said: "If she apologises, I will withdraw this matter." He also said: "Court will decide those issues. I have no recourse." He says his 2022 election as secretary-general was conducted by secret ballot overseen by the party's Electoral Commission.

His court papers call her claims "spurious and unfounded", adding: "They are false and made with the sole purpose of lowering my standing in the eyes of the public." He says the allegations imply corruption, fraud, money laundering, theft and dishonesty, and that her remark that "we all know, and we all saw that money was used" suggested direct knowledge rather than opinion.

The Podcast Remark That Started It All

The remarks were made on an episode of the African Renaissance Podcast, hosted by Dr Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, a former EFF MP, and aired on 3 August 2026. Dlamini-Zuma alleged money was used to influence the ANC's 2022 national elective conference at Nasrec, held in December 2022, where Cyril Ramaphosa was re-elected party president and Mbalula was elected secretary-general.

Her words in the interview: "Mbalula was dishing out money in the clinic. So money has played a role in the ANC. It wasn't like a secret. Money was used, we all know, and we all saw it." She said: "If you ask anyone who worked at the clinic at the time, they'll tell you." She added: "You remember there was money that was found in somebody's room, half a billion, on the first day of the conference."

In her court papers she says "the use of the money was to ensure he [Mbalula] and the current president of the ANC and the country [Ramaphosa] were elected", and that "there was a queue at the clinic, not of patients but of people lined up to receive the cash that the applicant was distributing to buy votes". She also claimed the practice stretched back to Ramaphosa's 2017 campaign, known as CR17.

Mbalula's affidavit says the podcast episode had attracted about 173,000 views when the affidavit was drafted. Eyewitness News and Briefly News reported the claim as cash distributed from an ambulance; her own on-air words and her court papers describe the alleged hand-outs at a clinic.

The Delegate Who Says He Saw Everything

Dlamini-Zuma's legal team placed the affidavit of ANC delegate Mandla Themba Sibiya before the court. Sibiya, of the Mzala Nxumalo Region, says he was at the 2022 conference when "Mbalula was distributing money to us as delegates", that he personally benefited, and that he is prepared to confront the issue openly.

Her team relies on his account as direct evidence and as proof that there is a genuine dispute of fact about what happened at Nasrec. His affidavit does not specifically refer to the clinic. It was deposed on 4 September, a month after the interview, and Mbalula's counsel told the court it was a police affidavit, not a confirmatory one.

'That's How Comical It Is'

Advocate Smanga Setheni, for Mbalula, argued Dlamini-Zuma could not rely on broad, unproven allegations in motion proceedings, which are decided on written affidavits rather than witness testimony. Because those proceedings do not allow cross-examination, he said, courts must generally accept the respondent's version unless it is so far-fetched or untenable that it can be rejected on the papers alone. His central challenge was evidential: "Immediately when proof is tendered before this court in the form of a video clip or picture where a delegate is receiving money from Mr Mbalula, then the court must reject that defence outright."

"To make an allegation or sweeping statements about somebody does not afford you protection," he told the court. He questioned why neither Sibiya nor Dlamini-Zuma had reported the alleged payments to the police or to ANC structures: "It is also not clear why, to date, the very same Mr Sibiya has not reported this spurious allegation to any police station or any ANC structures locally, provincially and nationally, the same as Dlamini Zuma."

He said she had produced nothing to show she raised the issue inside the party: "She doesn't even attach copies of the ANC NEC meeting. There's not even a confirmatory affidavit from any member of the NEC that she raised that issue." On Sibiya's claim that he "saw everything", he asked: "What is it that is 'everything' that he saw?"

On urgency, he argued that publication no longer ends when a recording stops: "When something is published by YouTube, as is the case with this particular podcast, it was replayed on SABC, it was replayed on e.tv. Whoever has shared it, whoever has had it, continues to publish it." A retraction from her, he added, would carry unusual weight: "The person who said this, My Lord, is the most powerful individual on the continent."

Arguing that she should not be able to insist Mbalula exhaust internal ANC processes first, Setheni compared the position to ANC members who are married to each other and want a divorce. The comparison prompted the presiding officer to interject and laughter broke out. The Citizen reported the exchange under the heading: "'That's how comical it is'".

The judge noted that Sibiya's statement made no reference to the active legal suit and appeared to have been generated as court proceedings were formally launched.

The Horse Has Bolted, Dlamini-Zuma's Counsel Tells the Court

Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane SC, for Dlamini-Zuma, said Sibiya's affidavit could not be dismissed merely because it lacked detail. It was, he said, direct evidence from a person who claims to have been at Nasrec and to have witnessed Mbalula distributing money. Questions about its detail went to credibility, which could not be decided without cross-examination.

"The proverbial horse has bolted," he said, arguing the publication had already happened. He set out three possible outcomes if the court found a genuine dispute of fact: the application dismissed, a narrow issue referred for oral evidence, or the entire matter sent to trial. "This is a classic unavoidable dispute of fact that requires viva voce evidence. Absolutely. And cross-examination." SABC News reported that he called for a full-blown trial to reveal the truth.

Sikhakhane dismissed the urgency of the application and said it was too late for Dlamini-Zuma to retract. There had been a single interview in August, he argued, with no evidence she repeated the statements or threatened to, and any further dissemination through the podcast was outside her control. He also argued the dispute over whether the money was handed out at a clinic or a room should not decide the matter, saying the real question was whether the alleged distribution happened at all.

The Real Argument: Keep It Inside the ANC

In papers filed at the Johannesburg High Court, Dlamini-Zuma describes the application as "procedurally defective, factually unsupported and substantively without merit" and as an abuse of the court process.

"It is unwarranted for the applicant to congest our courts with what is clearly a party-political matter requiring a robust and honest internal discussion about the role of money in the election of the leadership of the ANC," she says. She describes the litigation as an attempt to evade political responsibility and uncomfortable internal debate by resorting to "legal obfuscation". She also argues the application is defective because Ndlozi was not cited as a respondent, calling him "the only party capable of removing the content".

She rejects the framing of her remarks as a criminal complaint. "My statements were made in the context of political commentary. I was not reporting a crime," she says, adding: "This is not a dispute about legal interpretation. It is not a legal disagreement. It is a dispute about what happened."

On why more witnesses have not come forward, she says: "I am not alone in knowing that the applicant was engaged in this. There are many people in the ANC who witnessed this but some of them fear for their lives and are reluctant to come out." Others, she says, have been advised by their families not to enter the fray.

Her broader case is about the party, not only herself. "Our movement must find the courage to confront this problem as it is killing the ANC," she has said. Outside court, asked by Eyewitness News whether she would apologise, she said Mbalula knows what he did to win the race, and added: "Do you know who my strongest witness is? It's his conscience."

The PRECCA Question

Mbalula's affidavit invokes section 34(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, which requires a person in a position of authority who knows or suspects that certain offences, including corruption, fraud and theft, have been committed to report that knowledge or suspicion to a police official.

He argues Dlamini-Zuma, a Cabinet minister at the time of the alleged conduct, held such a position and therefore had a statutory duty to report the alleged bribery. "I am advised that if the Respondent failed to report the alleged corrupt activities she attributes to me to the law enforcement agencies, she is in terms of section 34(2) of PRECCA, guilty of an offence," he says.

He challenges her to produce proof that she reported the conduct to the South African Police Service, to SARS, or to the ANC's disciplinary and integrity structures. He also says she should have reported her claim that R500 million was found in "someone's room" at the conference. "Had she genuinely witnessed corruption or believed that I had bribed delegates, she had every opportunity and, in terms of PRECCA, a duty to report it," he says.

What Ramaphosa and the ANC Have Said

President Cyril Ramaphosa, speaking to journalists during an ANC election campaign the previous week, said he was aware of the rumours of vote-buying at the conference and that it was something the party leadership was "completely against". Zamani Saul, the ANC's Northern Cape provincial chairperson, acknowledged in an interview on eNCA that money continues to play a role in leadership contests and did not dispute the substance of her broader allegations.

Neither Mbalula's allegations against Dlamini-Zuma nor her allegations about him have been established by any court. The court has yet to determine the merits.

What Happens Next

Judgment has been reserved. The judge indicated that Sibiya's affidavit could not simply be dismissed, though questions remained about whether it contained enough detail.

The judge also questioned Setheni about the precise purpose of the relief Mbalula is seeking, particularly whether it is aimed at stopping the podcast's continued publication or at compelling a retraction and apology. He asked whether there was any evidence that Dlamini-Zuma intended to repeat the allegations.

Mbalula has said he will also take the matter to the ANC's Integrity Commission. Dlamini-Zuma's position is that the political and organisational question at the heart of the case remains before the ANC and cannot be resolved through litigation.

By Jessica Ali, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Sources: Daily Maverick, SABC News, Business Day, Sunday Times, Eyewitness News, The Citizen, News24, Africa Daily, TJ Times and Briefly News.