An Attack on the Integrity of the Organisation” – ANC Northern Cape Chair Zamani Saul Defends Ramaphosa, Slams Mapisa-Nqakula’s Revelations

“Disowning collective decisions is an attack on the ANC’s integrity” – ANC Northern Cape Chair Zamani Saul defends Ramaphosa, slams Mapisa-Nqakula. The decision to reject the Phala Phala report was an NEC decision, not Mbalula’s alone-Saul added.

The Azanian | Politics  

By Mpho Dube, Editor in Chief of The Azanian

Northern Cape Premier and ANC Provincial Chairperson Dr Zamani Saul has come out strongly in defense of President Cyril Ramaphosa, arguing that the president’s decision to take the Section 89 panel report on Phala Phala to court is both rational and within his constitutional rights.

Writing on 11 May, Saul congratulated Ramaphosa for “subjecting the Section 89 Independent Panel Report to judicial review and demonstrating absolute respect to the judiciary.”

He noted that the Constitutional Court itself suggested the report was susceptible to review, and said it was unfair to expect the president to resign on the basis of what he called “spurious allegations.”

“To do so would be crazily lowering the bar for impeachment,” Saul wrote.

With Ramaphosa making clear he will not resign, Saul said the political grandstanding should deflate and allow government to refocus on improving the lives of South Africans.

Saul, who has led the ANC in the Northern Cape since 2017 and previously served as provincial secretary and deputy secretary, then turned to the controversy sparked by former Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula’s podcast interview.

Mapisa-Nqakula claimed that ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula instructed the party’s caucus to vote against the Phala Phala report in December 2022.

Saul pushed back hard on that account. He reminded that the Section 89 panel handed its report to Mapisa-Nqakula on 30 November 2022. A few days later, the ANC’s National Executive Committee held a special meeting on 5–6 December to deliberate on it. After “serious and robust engagements,” the NEC decided to reject the report.

“The decision to mandate ANC Members of Parliament to reject the Section 89 Independent Panel Report was an NEC decision and not the decision of the Secretary General, comrade Fikile Mbalula,” Saul stressed. He pointed out that Mapisa-Nqakula herself was part of that NEC meeting.

For Saul, her public comments disowning that collective decision signal a breakdown in party discipline. “This kind of behavior, of disowning collective decisions, is concerning. It highlights a collapse of the internal party discipline and goes against the basic grain of collective leadership. This is unwittingly an attack on the integrity of the organisation,” he wrote.

Saul said he raised the matter with “an abundance of circumspection,” but framed it as a defense of the ANC’s tradition of collective leadership. He argued that if NEC decisions can be unpicked and blamed on individuals after the fact, it undermines the organization’s cohesion and credibility.

His intervention places him firmly in Ramaphosa’s corner at a moment when the president is under renewed pressure from the EFF, ATM and other opposition parties to step down.

Saul’s defense gives Ramaphosa cover within the ANC structure, reinforcing the argument that the party acted collectively and that the president is within his rights to seek judicial review.

The statement also sharpens the internal ANC debate about discipline and accountability. With the impeachment committee set to proceed in parallel with Ramaphosa’s legal challenge, Saul’s comments signal that key provincial leaders intend to close ranks around the president rather than allow the Phala Phala issue to fracture the organization further.