The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Some sections of the media have bought into the propaganda spread by Mr.
Muzi Simelane - former Chairman of the IFP Youth Brigade - to the effect
that he was suspended from the IFP because he publicly endorsed Mrs.
Zanele KaMagwaza Msibi - IFP National Chairperson - as IFP's next
President. What is disturbing is that almost all these sections of the
media did not care to ask either Dr Bonginkosi Buthelezi or Mr. Joshua
Mazibuko who co-authored the IFP Media Statement, as to why Simelane was
suspended prior to them singing Simelane's chorus. For the sake of those
interested in the truth here are the facts:

1. The eThekwini District Executive Committee resolved to constitute a
Disciplinary Committee that would probe Simelane on the following
charges:

a) The contravention of clause (10.20(c) of the IFP Constitution in that
on the 27th May 2009, he came to the IFP Head Office in Durban, stormed
and disrupted the media briefing organized by the Deputy President of
SADESMO. Mr. Ntuthuko Majozi in the presence of the media corps and went
on to ridicule the IFP and SADESMO leaders.

b) The contravention of clause 10.20(d) of the IFP Constitution in that
on a number of occasions since the 28th of May 2009 he trespassed by
continuing to enter the premises of the IFP Head Office at No. 2 Durban
Club Place, when permission to do so was refused by the Administrative
Secretary, Mr. MZ Khumalo in a letter which he wrote to him on the 28th
May 2009.

c) The contravention of clause 10.20(m) of the IFP Constitution in that
in Ilanga Newspaper dated 06th -08th August 2009 he issued an unsavoury
statement which publicly opposed the decision of National Council to
expel the youth leaders and this statement was followed by his letter
written to the Secretary-General on the 06th August 2009.

d) The contravention of clause 10.20(c) of the IFP Constitution in that
on the 23rd August 2009, he disrupted the IFP meeting at unit T, Umlazi,
which was called to inaugurate an IFP branch.

2. Simelane's first appearance before the eThekwini DC was on the 30th
September 2009. The second was on the 14th October 2009.

3. On the 30th October the DC met to deliberate and finalise the case.
He was found guilty on charges (c) and (d) sentenced to three-year
suspension as detailed in the IFP media statement of Wednesday
(11/11/09).

4. The eThekwini DEC then decided to take its verdict and sentence to
the National Executive Committee of the party for guidance and
ratification. The NEC which met on Monday the 9th November managed to
look into the matter and ratified our sentence.

5. The DEC then decided against issuing a statement straight after the
Monday NEC meeting because they wanted to first ensure that Simelane was
handed his letter. EThekwini Organizer, Mr. SS Zungu, communicated with
Simelane about the letter, and Simelane was aware that it was about the
verdict of the DC. Simelane advised the Organizer to leave the letter
with the Security at the IFP Head Office and promised to collect it on
Tuesday (10/11) afternoon. It was then decided that it was appropriate
to give him the whole of Tuesday and to release the statement Wednesday.

6. The disciplinary process against Mr. Simelane began in September,
long before his pronouncements of Tuesday (10/11). The two cannot
therefore be linked in any way except by someone determined to
destabilize the IFP. Anyone who doubts this account is free to ask
Simelane to show them the documentation related to this case.

7. One of the IFP leaders in eThekwini uttered a similar statement in
support of Mrs. KaMagwaza Msibi. But he is still a member and leader of
the IFP. Why was he not suspended, if Simelane's pronouncements are the
cause of his suspension?

It is disturbing that Simelane chooses to be belligerent instead of
challenging his suspension constitutionally and legally. The IFP
Constitution grants him the right to appeal up to the President himself.
Secondly, South Africa is a constitutional state; therefore, if he is
still not satisfied after exhausting the IFP's internal constitutional
processes, he is free to approach the courts of this land. Resorting to
belligerence makes one suspicious that he is aware that he does not have
a strong case.

We hope this account suffices to bury the propaganda and set the record
straight.