By Bheki Mngomezulu

After several postponements and various reasons being provided, the ANC’s national disciplinary committee (NDC) eventually sat for a virtual meeting to decide the fate of its former leader, Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Mhlanganyelwa Zuma.

While this is in line with the ANC’s constitution, especially Section 25.17.17, the whole matter and decision have raised many questions.

Some ask these questions from a non-partisan perspective as interested onlookers. Others ask the questions either in line with factional politics in the ANC or out of love for Zuma.

The first question is why did the ANC take so long to invoke its constitution? The question is triggered by the fact that Zuma announced on December 16, 2023, that he was going to support the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), not the ANC. During the same media briefing, he said that he would remain a member of the ANC.

Those who have constantly asked the first question blame the ANC for failing to implement its constitution. Some argue that the ANC wanted to give itself time to ventilate the decision by its former leader, so that it could not act impulsively in a haphazard manner. Others hold the view that the ANC feared Zuma’s supporters within the ANC.

A fair explanation is that the leadership of the ANC was caught off guard and had neither the courage nor the strategy to handle the matter. There was a looming election. Any hasty move would have negatively affected the ANC. With factional politics pitting ANC members and leaders against one another, reasons had to be found to explain to the general membership and the public why no immediate action was taken by the NDC.

To buttress the view that the leadership was caught off-guard, ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula told the media that Zuma had expelled himself from the party. This did not make sense because Mbalula’s statement was not in line with the party’s constitution.

The second question is should the ANC’s decision be interpreted to mean it is serious about rebuilding itself? An affirmative answer to the question would be plausible. If the party did everything by the book (in line with its constitution), its members and the public would see that it was serious about its renewal agenda.

However, this would become clear only if the party was consistent in its actions. For example, the ANC took a resolution to implement the step-aside rule against members who had been charged. Many members, such as Zandile Gumede in KwaZulu-Natal, were subjected to the rule. Intriguingly, the same did not happen to Zizi Kodwa and others who had been charged. Having appeared in court, Kodwa was sworn in as a member of Parliament in the seventh administration. Although he subsequently resigned, there was general concern about implementing the step-aside resolution selectively.

The third question is about Zuma’s expulsion. How will the NDC’s decision impact the party in terms of factional politics? In other words, will the NDC’s decision bring the ANC together or further divide the party?

The two-pronged question is important because factionalism is one of the factors that saw the ANC performing badly in the May 29 general election. Even the formation of the MKP was triggered by factionalism.

For example, some members were blindly supporting President Cyril Ramaphosa along factional lines even when it was clear that he was in the wrong. The case in point is the Phala Phala matter. Seeing that the case was indefensible, there were unconfirmed reports that Ramaphosa decided to resign. His supporters convinced him to rescind his resignation. They promised to use their numbers in the legislature to scuttle any effort to invoke Section 89 of the Constitution on impeachment. Indeed, he survived but the ANC suffered immensely, as evidenced in the election results.

Linked to the above is the fourth question. How will the NDC’s decision to expel Zuma affect the ANC in the 2026 local government election and the 2029 general election?

The answer to this depends on how the ANC – and the NDC – will behave henceforth. If there was consistency in the party’s actions in disciplining its members, voters might be convinced that the ANC was serious about its renewal agenda and vote for it.

However, should they get the impression that Zuma was singled out, the result would be a decline in support for the party, as was the case in the May general election.

The fifth and last question derives from the statements made by Tony Yengeni who represented Zuma at the NDC hearing. The two-pronged question is why was such a serious and unprecedented hearing held through a virtual platform and whether it was conducted fairly?

When the ANC explained its decision to use the virtual platform in one of the postponed sittings, it cited security concerns. This was the case even though court cases had been heard in person and were not accompanied by violence.

On the fairness of the process, Yengeni described it as a “flawed” process – whatever the reasons were.

From beginning to end, the Zuma matter has triggered many questions. There is no consensus on how to respond to the questions – even among ANC members. Therefore, only time will tell how the NDC’s decision will affect the ANC.

* Prof Bheki Mngomezulu is director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at the Nelson Mandela University

** The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media