“The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg ruled on 9 October 2026 that the ANC’s removal of Andile Lungisa from its proportional representation candidate list for Nelson Mandela Bay was unlawful and unconstitutional, ordering the party to take steps to reinstate him. The ruling comes as South Africa prepares for the 4 November local government elections, with the ANC also facing a separate legal dispute over 181 councillor nominations that were not submitted by the Electoral Commission of South Africa’s deadline.”
South Africa Elections 2026: Court Ruling on Andile Lungisa Raises Questions About Candidate Selection and Party Accountability
South Africa’s preparations for the 4 November 2026 local government elections have entered a consequential phase, with legal disputes over candidate selection placing internal political-party procedures under increased scrutiny. A Gauteng High Court ruling concerning African National Congress (ANC) National Executive Committee member Andile Lungisa has brought questions about party authority, procedural fairness and electoral administration into focus.
On Friday, 9 October, the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg declared Lungisa’s removal from the ANC’s proportional representation candidate list for Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid. The court directed the ANC to take immediate steps to reinstate him and ordered the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) to supplement the candidate list to include his name.
The judgment arrives less than a month before South Africans vote in municipal elections. Consequently, the case has significance beyond the individual candidate: it highlights how political parties must follow their own governing rules while meeting electoral deadlines established by the IEC.
The High Court’s decision
The dispute arose after the ANC removed Lungisa from its proportional representation list for Nelson Mandela Bay in the Eastern Cape. The party cited his criminal record and outstanding vetting requirements as reasons for excluding him.
Lungisa challenged the decision in court, naming the ANC, its secretary-general Fikile Mbalula, the party’s National Executive Committee and the IEC among the respondents. His challenge questioned whether Mbalula had the authority to remove his name under the ANC’s internal rules.
According to reporting by The Citizen, Judge Nelisa Phiwokazi Mali focused on whether the official who made the decision had acted within the powers granted by the party’s governing instruments. The court was not being asked to replace the ANC’s political judgment with its own assessment of the candidate. Instead, it examined whether the prescribed decision-making procedures had been followed.
The distinction matters because political parties are entitled to establish candidate-selection criteria, including vetting requirements. However, those powers must be exercised in accordance with their constitutions and applicable legal obligations.
The court found that Lungisa’s account of having progressed beyond the relevant vetting stage was consistent with the procedures followed before the IEC’s deadline for submitting candidate lists. It also noted that he had not been given an opportunity to respond to the outstanding requirements reportedly raised by the party.
These considerations formed part of the basis for the judgment against his removal.
Why the ANC’s internal rules matter
Political parties play a central role in South Africa’s representative democracy. They select candidates, organise campaigns and present policy programmes to voters. Their internal procedures therefore affect not only party members but also the choices available to the electorate.
The judgment referred to the ANC constitution’s provisions governing the removal of candidates from party lists. As reported by The Citizen, the relevant provision allows removal where a candidate is disqualified through the vetting process or voted out by 90% of the extended National Executive Committee.
The court’s reasoning emphasised that the secretary-general’s position does not automatically grant unrestricted discretion to amend a final candidate list.
This principle raises a practical governance question: how should a party respond when it believes a candidate does not satisfy its requirements, particularly when an election deadline is approaching?
A clear process should identify the grounds for exclusion, establish which party structure has authority to make the decision, provide the affected candidate with an appropriate opportunity to respond and document the final outcome. Such procedures can reduce uncertainty and help prevent internal disagreements from becoming urgent court cases.
The ruling does not mean political parties must accept every candidate who seeks nomination. Rather, the case demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between a party’s authority to set eligibility rules and the procedures it must follow when applying them.
Electoral deadlines and the candidate-list dispute
The Lungisa case is unfolding alongside a separate ANC dispute concerning missed candidate nominations.
According to The Citizen, the ANC failed to submit 181 councillor nominations electronically by the IEC’s deadline of 5pm on 28 August 2026. The party attributed the failure to a technical problem. The affected candidates were left off the ballot in six municipalities, including Mangaung.
The ANC subsequently approached the Electoral Court seeking reinstatement of those candidates, but its application was dismissed. The party’s application for leave to appeal that decision was scheduled to be heard by the Constitutional Court on Monday, 12 October.
Nevertheless, both cases demonstrate the importance of effective administration in electoral competition.
Election timetables are designed to give electoral authorities sufficient time to verify nominations, prepare ballots and organise voting arrangements. Late changes can create additional administrative work and uncertainty for parties, candidates and election officials.
For political organisations, the lesson is that candidate vetting, internal approvals, electronic submissions and deadline monitoring must operate together. A party may have legitimate concerns about a nominee, but those concerns must be managed within the applicable rules and timetable.
Implications for Nelson Mandela Bay
Nelson Mandela Bay, which includes Gqeberha and surrounding communities, is an important municipal contest in the Eastern Cape. As in other municipalities, voters will be choosing representatives responsible for local governance and service delivery.
Lungisa’s reinstatement concerns the ANC’s proportional representation list. In South Africa’s municipal electoral system, proportional representation helps allocate council seats according to parties’ electoral support, alongside ward-based representation under the applicable electoral arrangements.
The court order means that the relevant candidate-list arrangements must be updated to reflect the judgment. However, the ruling alone does not determine how voters will cast their ballots, how many seats the ANC will obtain or which political party will control the municipality after the election.
Those outcomes depend on the electoral process and the choices made by voters.
For residents, the central concern remains whether municipal representatives can address local priorities. These include reliable water and sanitation, electricity, roads, waste removal, public transport, housing administration and transparent management of public funds.
Candidate-list disputes can attract considerable political attention, but they should not obscure the practical responsibilities that elected councillors will face after the election.
Voters can assess parties and candidates by examining their policy commitments, previous performance, proposed budgets and explanations of how they intend to improve municipal services.
The role of the Electoral Commission
The IEC is responsible for administering elections in accordance with South Africa’s electoral framework. Its work includes managing candidate nominations, preparing electoral processes and supporting the conduct of free and fair elections.
The commission is also a respondent in the Lungisa matter because the court ordered it to supplement the candidate list to include his name.
This illustrates how judicial decisions and election administration can intersect. A court may determine that a party decision was unlawful, but the resulting order may still require practical steps to update electoral records.
As election day approaches, accuracy and consistency are essential. Candidates, parties and election officials must have a clear understanding of which names appear on the relevant lists and what corrections are required following legal proceedings.
The commission must also communicate official information clearly, particularly when legal disputes generate public speculation. Voters should rely on the IEC’s official announcements and verified party information rather than unconfirmed social media claims.
Voter participation and special votes
Candidate disputes are only one part of South Africa’s preparations for the November election. Voter participation and accessibility are equally important.
A City of Johannesburg notice published on 8 October stated that applications for special votes close on Monday, 12 October 2026. Eligible voters who cannot attend their registered voting station on election day may apply under the applicable arrangements. The provisions include home visits for qualifying voters who are physically unable to travel, as well as voting at the registered station during the two days before election day for approved applicants who cannot attend on 4 November.
Applications can be submitted through the IEC website, by SMS for the qualifying voting-station option, or by visiting a local IEC office and submitting the required form.
The deadline is especially relevant for eligible voters who will be away from their voting districts or who require an approved alternative voting arrangement.
At the same time, voter education remains essential. The public needs accurate information about registration, voting eligibility, polling arrangements and the procedures for raising electoral concerns.
These practical preparations help ensure that political competition translates into meaningful participation rather than confusion about administrative requirements.
Accountability and public confidence
Court proceedings involving candidate selection can influence public perceptions of political parties. However, the implications should be assessed through the evidence and the specific findings of each judgment rather than assumptions about broader political motives.
In Lungisa’s case, the court examined the authority exercised by a party official, the ANC’s constitutional provisions and the opportunity afforded to the candidate to respond to the concerns raised about his nomination.
The judgment establishes that the removal was unlawful under the circumstances considered by the court. It does not establish that every aspect of the ANC’s candidate-selection process is invalid, nor does it resolve unrelated disputes about nominations in other municipalities.
Maintaining these distinctions is important for responsible reporting.
Political parties can strengthen public confidence by communicating selection criteria clearly, recording decisions properly and ensuring that internal appeals and disciplinary procedures operate consistently. Electoral authorities can contribute by publishing accurate information and implementing court orders transparently.
For voters, access to reliable reporting makes it easier to distinguish confirmed legal outcomes from political allegations or campaign messaging.
What happens next?
The immediate consequence of the ruling is that the ANC must take steps to reinstate Lungisa on its Nelson Mandela Bay proportional representation candidate list, with the IEC ordered to supplement the list accordingly. The separate Constitutional Court proceedings concerning the 181 missed nominations were scheduled for 12 October, creating another important legal development to follow before election day.
The eventual practical effect of these proceedings will depend on the relevant court orders, electoral procedures and implementation steps. It would be premature to assume that the disputes will produce a particular election result.
Meanwhile, political parties are continuing their campaigns, and municipal concerns remain central to the contest. Communities will be assessing candidates on their plans for service delivery, financial accountability, infrastructure maintenance and local economic development.
The period before 4 November will therefore test not only campaign organisation but also the ability of parties and electoral institutions to manage disputes within established legal frameworks.
Conclusion
The Gauteng High Court’s ruling on Andile Lungisa’s removal from the ANC candidate list is a significant election-related development in the run-up to South Africa’s 2026 local government elections. By declaring the removal unlawful and ordering reinstatement steps, the court placed emphasis on the relationship between political-party authority, internal rules and procedural fairness.
The separate dispute over missed councillor nominations also underlines the importance of complying with electoral deadlines. Together, these developments demonstrate that credible elections require more than campaign activity: they depend on transparent procedures, accurate candidate records and effective cooperation between political parties, courts and the IEC.
Ultimately, voters will determine the composition of municipal councils through the ballot. Their decisions will shape local governance for the next term, making informed participation and access to verified electoral information particularly important in the weeks ahead.
