Ngcukayitobi bombshell: Claims he heard Mbalula order Andile Lungisa’s list removal

Eastern Cape ANC provincial secretary Lulama Ngcukayitobi says he personally witnessed the instruction to remove Andile Lungisa from the PR List of the ANC submitted to the IEC ahead of the forthcoming local government elections.

This is contained in an explosive letter by Ngcukayitobi, through his lawyers, charging at Mbalula for defamation.

The revelation raises explosive questions about whether other ANC NEC-approved candidates were also removed, whether Mbalula had authority to do such unilaterally, and whether the scandal has brought the ANC into deeper disrepute.

READ: Thuthu Zuma takes aim at ANC ‘boss’ Mbalula after Electoral Court defeat

“Our client (Ngcukayitobi) is only aware of the instance where you personally instructed, in his presence, the alteration of the list, including the removal of Mr Andile Lungisa’s name from the Proportional Representation List of Nelson Mandela Bay. To your knowledge, our client is not responsible for the alteration of any lists,” wrote Ngcukayitobi’s lawyer, Eric Mabuza.

“In addition to their falsity, the impugned statements [that it is Ngcukayitobi who caused the list submission mess] are motivated by malice and the desire to shift blame from yourself, where it belongs in that as the administrative head of the ANC, you engaged in a series of conduct which culminated in the failure to submit the lists over a protracted period of time.

“Such conduct includes but is not limited to causing an illegal provincial conference to be convened in March 2026, illegally installing a so-called Provincial Task Team, and sidelining the duly elected Provincial Executive Committee and the Provincial Secretary until the belated ‘reinstatement’ thereof only a few weeks before the IEC deadlines. Such conduct was calculated and in any event resulted in the failure to submit the lists on time or at all.”

Beyond a deadline: a question of power

The ANC candidate-list catastrophe has crossed a far more dangerous threshold.

This is no longer primarily about an IEC deadline. It is about who exercised power to alter NEC-approved candidate lists, whether that power lawfully existed, how many candidates may have been affected, and whether conduct now alleged against the ANC secretary-general, if established, engages the organisation’s own rules on misconduct and disrepute.

Ngcukayitobi alleges that Mbalula falsely blamed him for the Eastern Cape submission failure and suggested that he may have altered NEC-approved lists. Then comes the allegation that should command the attention of every ANC NEC, PEC, REC, BEC and entire membership.

READ: DA rubs salt in ANC’s wounds after Electoral Court defeat

Ngcukayitobi’s attorneys state that the only alteration of which he has personal knowledge was allegedly instructed by Mbalula himself, in Ngcukayitobi’s presence, including the removal of Lungisa from the Nelson Mandela Bay PR list.

That allegation is unproven, and Mbalula must answer it. Mbalula has until Tuesday noon to unconditionally withdraw his allegations or face an all-out war against him.

The search for corroboration

Lungisa had already separately alleged before the court that Mbalula personally instructed officials to remove him despite NEC approval.

Lungisa says he was not present when the alleged instruction was given, but that people who witnessed it are prepared to confirm his version under oath.

Ngcukayitobi’s letter therefore introduces something potentially decisive, an alleged eyewitness. If corroborated, Lungisa cannot be the end of the investigation but the beginning.

READ: Lungisa accuses Mbalula of ordering his removal from ANC list

An NEC member who spoke on condition of anonymity posed a question – was Lungisa the only NEC-approved candidate allegedly removed on instruction? Or is he merely the first case in which somebody has now formally claimed personal knowledge of who issued the instruction?

Another senior NEC member said: “Mbalula could just be the worst SG we have ever had. This guy runs the organisation like his own fiefdom and is desperately trying to manipulate everything for his 2027 ambitions.”

The NEC member insists that NEC must answer – how many other names changed after NEC approval? Who was removed? Who was inserted? Who authorised each intervention? And why?

Constitutional boundaries and ANC rules

Then comes the question that cuts to the heart of ANC authority that a PEC member from Free State asked – could the secretary-general lawfully do it? With what authority?

Lungisa’s pleaded case relies on the ANC candidate-selection rules to contend that Mbalula had no unilateral authority to remove him.

In his court papers seeking to review Mbalula’s decision to remove him, Lungisa says final lists required extended-NEC approval and NEC ratification; subsequent changes required “very serious grounds” and 80% agreement of the extended NEC; and once the process reached IEC submission, changes were limited to death, disqualification or withdrawal.

Therefore, if Ngcukayitobi’s allegation is established, where is the authority for Lungisa’s removal? Where is the 80% decision? What were the serious grounds? Had Lungisa withdrawn, died or been disqualified?

If some other constitutional authority existed, it would have to be produced because if an NEC-approved candidate was deliberately removed without authority, this ceases to be an administrative mishap and becomes an organisational-accountability question of the highest order.

The ANC Constitution itself makes failure to comply with ANC rules, regulations and resolutions potential gross misconduct. It separately encompasses conduct that brings or could bring the organisation into disrepute and conduct prejudicing its integrity, repute or operational capacity. Any disciplinary finding would, of course, require evidence and due process.

So, if the allegation is proven, the ANC top seven cannot simply ask who altered a spreadsheet but must determine whether their own Constitution has been severely compromised and act through the competent structures accordingly or protect one of their own against the rule book.

Investigating the appointing authority

Given the gravity of Ngcukayitobi’s lawyer’s letter, an even more uncomfortable question now confronts the forensic investigation – will the expert appointed by Mbalula investigate Mbalula?

Mbalula commissioned the forensic investigation into the Eastern Cape list controversy. Now the appointing authority has himself been expressly implicated by the provincial secretary.

A KwaZulu-Natal PTY member enraged that these allegations bring about more questions than answers, as we have also been compromised. Does the mandate permit investigation of the secretary-general? Can the investigator examine relevant communications and instructions if the evidentiary trail enters his office? Can witnesses implicating the appointing authority testify freely? Who controls access to evidence? Who receives the report? Will its findings reach the appropriate ANC structures unedited?

But the forensic investigation must be capable of determining motive if the evidence takes it there. Were interventions legitimate administrative corrections? Properly authorised political decisions? Unauthorised alterations? Factional interventions? Did any alteration have any connection whatsoever to positioning for 2027?

Uncovering the digital audit trail

The probe will have to preserve the NEC-approved lists, preserve every subsequent version and identify every insertion and deletion.

It will have to retrieve timestamps, user credentials and audit trails and examine relevant emails, WhatsApp messages and instructions between provincial and national structures.

Ngcukayitobi’s attorneys additionally accuse Mbalula of malice and attempting to shift responsibility from himself. Those too are allegations requiring proof. The ANC cannot escape what now confronts it.

A member of Free State PEC asserted that Mbalula is protected by the President.

“The President does not care about the ANC. He got what he wanted and does not care anymore. There is no President that would allow this conduct of Mbalula to take place.”

Mbalula was contacted for comment, but no response was received.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter