Thread by @ermbates

#AceMagashule #MagashulevsANC Judge Jody Kollapen has asked parties about several intervention applications, he has awarded 15 minutes for oral submissions on an intervention application from Mutumwa Mawere, who is representing himself. Mawere begins.

Mawere begins saying, "This matter is unusual in the sense that [it] is in the background [a] fight for control of the ANC in the backdrop." He says the SG and ANC "seem not to be at one" whereas, essentially, his interest to intervene is predicated on his own issue.

#AceMagashule #MagashulevsANC Zimbabwean-born businessman Mawere (who, according to reports, now holds dual citizenship) wants to intervene in Ace Magashule's matter against President Cyril Ramaphosa, Jessie Duarte and the ANC.

#AceMagashule #MagashulevsANC In late May, Mawere served papers on parties. He is eager to get in on the action in the charged political battle, which he claims involves parties "fighting like animals" and says the party's powers to litigate remains vested with the NEC.

Mawere claims that Deputy Secretary-General Jessie Duarte is "arrogant and cavalier" and says he does not have facts to indicate she is authorised to respond to her answering affidavit because, he asserts, "her authority is in dispute." He wants the court to weigh in on this.

[BACKGROUND] Mawere, a larger than life figure whose now-defunct personal website featured photographs with Nelson Mandela and Stevie Wonder, has courted controversy in both South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Mawere has been involved in a fleet of court cases including challenging extradition from South Africa to Zimbabwe in 2004, disputes over an asbestos business which went bust and an investigation by the Hawks over a suspected lotteries fraud to the tune of R5-million.

Mawere has taken aim at Duarte, and insists she has stepped into the Secretary General's role in an "arbitrary manner and condescending manner". Judge Edwin Molahleli asks him about the authority he insists the NEC must award Duarte for her to act on the party's behalf.

"Absent the determination of appropriate circumstances there is no delegation," says Mawere. He refers to 12.2.19 of the ANC's constitution, in reply to a question from Judge Sharise Weiner.

[NOT VERBATIM, SUMMARISED] Mawere: The SG is the primary party. The DSG is not the primary party. You can't have a DSG without and SG. Once you remove the SG, you can't have a DSG who remains. You have a constitution. What is the bridge to the NEC?

Kollapen cautions, or reminds Mawere that "we are talking about a voluntary association" and the court's interpretive task pertains to one. "The court cannot encroach into a voluntary organisation," says Mawere. "Precisely," replies Kollapen. Mawere continues.

Mawere claims there has been a "coup d'état" in the ANC's SG's office. Counsel for the ANC replies now. Advocate Ngwako Maenetje SC responds for Duarte on behalf of the ANC, saying Mawere's intervention application is so defective the court should throw it out.

Maenetje refers to papers in which Duarte lays out her role and the authorities on which she bases it "to institute and defend legal proceedings on behalf of the ANC" and to act on behalf of the ANC.

[SUMMARISED] Maenetje says Mawere suggests the DSG's powers are only in effect when the SG is not in office, which is a narrow reading of the relevant ANC rule. "She definitely can [...] defend the intervention application," says Maenetje.

Maenetje says this intervention application is not urgent and Mawere has a pending case challenging his ANC suspension. "He was suspended for misconduct so his suspension is completely unrelated," says Maenetje. He is arguing Mawere's interest is not relevant to Magashule's case.

Maenetje says of the NEC that "this is a committee of 80 members" and appropriate circumstances for delegation apply. To suggest that the NEC must convene and resolve to defend the ANC and every time there is litigation the party faces is absurd, he suggests. There is delegation.

Maenetje says the interventions are incidental to that Magashule application and the delegation of authority which Duarte enjoys apply. Kollapen invites Mawere to reply to Maenetje's submissions.

"There is nothing before the court, the respondents refuse to accept service and I simply abandoned it thinking the ANC would correct and [...] the conference would produce a new view on the rule of law. Unfortunately this opportunity was lost," says Mawere.

Mawere says the SG and the DSG are at loggerheads and urges the court to protect and promote the rule of law. "He raises the issue of authority. It is in the rules," says Mawere. He says when authority is challenged, it is only the court that can make a determination on this.

"Appropriate circumstances must mean something," says Mawere. He soon adds, "Imagine! My member fees are used to litigate in a vexatious, in a dog fight in the ANC. There is no centre of control. The DSG suspends the SG."

Weiner asks Mawere about his intervention application, which was brought on an urgent basis. "Your case doesn't fall within the same circumstances," she says. "My application was merely to seek the leave of the court to intervene," says Mawere. Weiner asks about his interest.

Molahleli refers to a remark made earlier by Mawere that "a duck is a duck" and Molahleli says that a duck may be a duck but there are ducks which sit on the side of the road, others that cross is, and ducks that seek to jump the queue.

Molahleli says to Mawere there are other people that may want to come in, the court wants to help Mawere, but there are others who may want to come in with concerns about the ANC. Mawere begins his response and soon asserts he is trying to help the court.

Weiner asks Mawere if his grievance is that the SG and the DSG are set to engage in what he is called "a dogfight" in court and they should, per him, resolve the matter outside of court.

Mawere says, "I shudder to think what the SG, he is deprived, removed [...] and he has lost everything. Should we afford one more man [...] this tyranny?" Molahleli asks why do we need to deal with individual cases where dealing with one case will resolve this problem.

Mawere claims "once you are suspended through this orthodoxy and kangaroo methods" what protects you? Kollapen speaks, saying what Mawere seeks is very different from what Magashule seeks in the main case. "The relief you seek might well be valid [...] for another day," he says.

"If this can happen to the SG, it compels all of us [...] at the core of it is authority. Who has got the authority to litigate, whether the [...] DSG can remove the SG for the purpose of litigating?" ask Mawere.

[SUMMARISED] Molahleli asks Mawere what if the court says that his case can be hard by another court at another time, he still has another opportunity, the doors are not closed insofar as Mawere's intervention application is concerned but it does not align with Magashule's case.

[NOT VERBATIM] Kollapen emphasises the requirements in law on the right to intervene, says the court must evaluate his bid in terms of case law and the state of the law on intervention, and highlights to Mawere there is nothing untoward in that legal process. He thanks Mawere.

Kollapen suggests an adjournment for half an hour so the full bench can consider all the intervention applications (of which Mawere's is but one, there are at least two others which they will consider on papers) in the Magashule versus ANC matter.

Court adjourns for a short break so the three judges of the South Gauteng High Court can adjudicate on applications to intervene in the matter suspended SG Magashule has brought against the ANC's president, DSG and the party itself over the step-aside rule or regime.

[COURT RESUMES] Kollapen begins now, providing a summary of what occurred before the break. The court will now deal with that application and two others considered on papers.

"I'm not sure if it's of the kind that warrants adjudication in this urgent application [...] the application of Mr Mawere is opposed by the ANC [...] on three bases," says Kollapen. Mawere was suspended as a branch secretary in 2012, launched a legal challenge thereof in 2013.

Kollapen refers to the ANC's point that Mawere has not done anything "substantive" regarding his suspensions as an ANC branch secretary almost a decade ago.

"There are a number of insurmountable problems that the intervention application presents," says Kollapen of Mawere's application to intervene. He says certain relief Mawere seeks can be sought by other means. Kollapen raises the "grounds" of urgency Mawere cited.

Kollapen raises the pending 2013 litigation regarding Mawere's suspension. He indicates the court is not persuaded that Mawere has met requirements for intervention, including on urgent grounds. The court dismisses Mawere's intervention application with costs.

The following intervention Kollapen addresses is the application for intervention by two self-identified ANC members of good standing, a region and branch. See more on that application to intervene below. businesslive.co.za/bd/national/20…

Two down, when it comes to applications to intervene in the case Magashule has brought against the ANC. Those of Mawere and five parties (including two ANC members, a region and *two* branches, correction on the tweet above) have been dismissed.

MT: Three down. All three intervention applications are struck from the roll, says Kollapen. The court's decision includes costs for each of the three intervention applications. "I agree," says Weiner and Molahlehi. "Ok that brings us then to the main application," says Kollapen.

[HAPPENING NOW] Advocate Dali Mpofu SC for Magashule begins in the case proper between suspended SG Ace Magashule against ANC leader Cyril Ramaphosa, deputy SG Jessie Duarte and the party. Mpfou places some concerns on record.

Mpofu says he will deal with condonation. "I simply want to point out that, you know, the respect of our courts must not be taken by granted by any litigant," he says. "All people who come before our courts are treated the same, whether they are kings or paupers," he adds.

Mpofu says "we are of the view" the litigants in this matter (so, the respondents: Ramaphosa, Duarte and the ANC) seem to think there are different rules for different people, in terms of treatment toward and from the court. He emphasises *respect* for the court.

Mpofu continues: We have here a situation where the litigants in question have flagrantly disregarded the very well-known rule in urgent applications the applicant determines the timetable.

"That is a sense of arrogance and entitlement," asserts Mpofu, describing on the respondents' conduct in light of the timeline set out by Magashule in his urgent application. He makes special mention of Duarte. "We went out of our way to serve our unsigned copy on the 13th."

Mpofu for Magashule is addressing the respondents' appeal for condonation from the court in terms of their response to papers. "The first respondent even makes this worse," says Mpofu of Ramaphosa filing papers in late May (think he said 27 May but need to confirm).

"Respect is a two-way street [...] it's very important. If our courts are going to give the impression to the public certain litigants [...] can just treat the court as if it's side office [...] then that is something to be deprecated," says Mpofu.

Mpofu says that Ramaphosa's plea for condonation only from 25 May (the date of Duarte's late filing) must be dealt with firmly, and incorporated into an order on costs. Molahlehi asks Mpofu some questions on his submissions about condonation.

"There's a context, you would agree, that we would have to take into account whether or not to grant condonation," says Molahlehi. "I agree unconditionally," replies Mpofu adding he must not be misunderstood, there was nothing but cooperation from colleagues on going to the DJP.

Weiner asks Mpofu what is the prejudice suffered (by Magashule) as a consequence of the belated filings from respondents (Ramaphosa and Duarte) . "The question cannot be asked from the victim [...] that is why the test is for the other side," responds Mpofu.

"The prejudice, with respect, speaks for itself," says Mpofu in reply to Weiner. Molahlehi continues, picking up from Weiner in pressing Mpofu on this point. He adds, in law, prejudice includes prejudice and potential prejudice.

[NOT VERBATIM] Molahlehi does not want to underplay application of the rules, and the court always needs to apply compliance with the rules. Kollapen says if Mpofu's correct, the court should consider the affidavit, grant condonation, register displeasure (and in a costs order).

"The victim is now being made to justify why she is wearing a long skirt," says Mpofu in reply to Kollapen, who has raised questions about condonation and Mpofu's argument for sanction (or deprecation) of the respondents.

Mpofu continues saying the transgressors "are not us" after raising another example of when a crime victim leaves their door open they are blamed for thieves entering and victimising them (my wording).

Mpofu concludes. Another member of Magashule's legal team follows (whose name and spelling I am confirming). He is seated in back row at the Sandton hotel from which his team is participating in this virtual sitting of the South Gauteng High Court.

Advocate Mpati Qofa for Magashule and Weiner debate content from Ramaphosa's submissions. Qofa argues certain attachments must be struck out, and asserts certain documents are included to "annoy" Magashule, do not help the court and deal with the matters at hand.

MT: "Most critically you have the applicant having to address side issues," says Qofa. She asserts all the respondents have submitted documents in this matter that should be struck out because they are vexatious, irrelevant, annoying and prejudicial to Magashule.

"So, your prejudice is that you had to read them?" asks Weiner. Qofa replies saying not only that they had to read them, print them out, and address the court on them. She suggests the costs of having to duplicate this record in the case of appeal will be an issue.

Weiner says that is a matter for the appellate division, and notes Qofa's (other) points are taken. Weiner asks if it would not have been collegial for the lawyers to tighten up the duplications. Qofa says in the same spirit the parties could've sat down, worked to the timeline.

Kollapen asks about the mention of CR17 (this seems to be a bone of contention; earlier Weiner said to Qofa that Magashule wants *his* suspension of Ramaphosa upheld and the campaign funding is cited as a ground, therefore it makes sense for Ramaphosa to address it).

"The issue is relevant, not so? The concern which you have is the extent to which it is dealt with and duplication," Kollapen says to Qofa on the CR17 material. It's a consideration the judges must take into account in terms of relevance, he suggests. Qofa agrees.

[SUMMARISED, NOT VERBATIM] Qofa for Magahsule: Even if we say mention of the CR17 campaign is relevant, all those annexures are irrelevant for the purposes of the application before the court and ought to be struck out.

Kollapen adjourns for lunch. Proceedings are scheduled to resume at 13:30.

Proceedings resumed several minutes ago, and Mpofu is speaking about the "meat of this case" reflected in 22 pages. Kindly note I will not be live tweeting this afternoon's sitting. You can following the matter via the following link.