In a major legal development shaking the ANC, the High Court has directed that the defamation dispute between party veteran Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula must be resolved through oral evidence.

Following the decision, Mbalula clarified that the judgment does not validate the allegations made against him.

The legal fallout erupted after Dlamini-Zuma alleged, during an appearance on the African Renaissance Podcast hosted by former EFF MP Dr Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, that illicit financial influence heavily dictated internal ANC election outcomes.

Specifically, she accused Mbalula and Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola of vote-buying at the ANC’s fifty-fourth National Conference in 2017. Furthermore, she alleged that Mbalula "dished out money" at a clinic facility during the fifty-fifth National Conference in 2022 to secure his position and protect President Cyril Ramaphosa’s leadership.

In response to the broadcast, Mbalula initiated defamation proceedings to clear his name, while simultaneously referring Dlamini-Zuma to the ANC Integrity Commission. Mbalula petitioned the court for an order compelling Dlamini-Zuma to issue an immediate retraction and apology.

Acting Judge HM Viljoen declined to grant the immediate order for retraction sought by Mbalula. Instead, the court determined that the core factual disputes, and the gravity of the allegations, are better evaluated through witness testimonies and oral evidence under oath.

Dlamini-Zuma, who has filed a formal notice of intention to oppose the suit, welcomed the ruling.

“The Court has made no such order [for retraction. It has directed instead that the central factual question be determined on oral evidence from us and witnesses. I remain committed to cooperating with the Court's processes,” Dlamini-Zuma stated.

Standing firmly by her initial remarks, Dlamini-Zuma emphasised that the litigation serves as a necessary inflection point for the ruling party.

She argued that if the ANC is to genuinely achieve organisational renewal, it must confront the role of money in its elective processes.

Out of respect for the judiciary, she indicated she would no longer debate the merits of the case in the public domain.

Meanwhile, Mbalula also welcomed the court's decision to test the veracity of the statements under oath, noting that the judge did not dismiss the matter outright as Dlamini-Zuma had requested.

However, Mbalula was quick to clarify that the judgment does not validate the allegations made against him.

“The factual dispute remains to be determined after the evidence of the relevant witnesses has been tested under oath. I welcome that process. I have consistently maintained that the allegations are false and I have nothing to hide,” Mbalula said.

He rejected any public commentary suggesting that the court's refusal to issue an immediate retraction served as a vindication of Dlamini-Zuma’s claims.

“It has not," Mbalula clarified. "The Court has made no finding that I distributed money to delegates, bought votes or otherwise corrupted the electoral process at the ANC's fifty-fifth National Conference. I will allow the evidence to be tested in court, where it belongs, rather than conduct the remainder of this matter through public statements and political commentary.”