‘That’s how comical it is’: Laughter in court as Mbalula’s lawyer ridicules Dlamini-Zuma’s bribery claims
· Citizen
A defamation battle between ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula and former Cabinet minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma took a lively turn in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on Tuesday, with laughter breaking out after an analogy made by Mbalula’s lawyer.
Visit sport-newz.biz for more information.
At the centre of the dispute are comments by Dlamini-Zuma alleging that Mbalula “dishing out” cash to delegates during the ANC’s 2022 national elective conference in a bid to secure votes.
Dlamini-Zuma made the allegations during an interview with former EFF MP Mbuyiseni Ndlozi on his African Renaissance Podcast on 3 August 2026.
Mbalula has since approached the court seeking an order forcing Dlamini-Zuma, also known as NDZ, to retract the allegations and apologise following her refusal.
He is also seeking damages over what he considers defamatory statements.
Mbalula and Dlamini-Zuma defamation legal battle
Arguing Mbalula’s case, Advocate Smanga Sethene told the court Dlamini-Zuma’s “false and injurious statements” were both damaging and deliberate.
He maintained that there was no credible evidence before the court showing that Mbalula had handed money to delegates at the conference.
The lawyer also placed emphasis on the size of the gathering, arguing that the alleged conduct would have been difficult to conceal given the thousands of people who attended.
“The majority of the delegates possessed and carry smartphones equipped with recent technological advanced features, with high-resolution pictures.
“Yet, not a picture of the alleged incident was captured by anyone.
“What remains undisputed is that Dr NDZ cannot substantiate her defamatory remarks against Mr Mbalula,” Sethene argued.
Affidavit comes under scrutiny
Part of Dlamini-Zuma’s case includes an affidavit from Mandla Themba Sibiya, who was allegedly a delegate who benefited from the alleged bribery.
Sethene challenged the evidentiary value of the document.
“It is not a confirmatory affidavit,” he remarked.
According to Sethene, Sibiya’s circumstances and the contents of his affidavit raised further questions.
He pointed out that Sibiya was unemployed and had not specified how much money he allegedly received.
The lawyer argued that the affidavit failed to provide the support Dlamini-Zuma, who was present in court, needed for her allegations.
“It is also clear why, to date, the very same Mr Sibiya has not reported these spurious allegations to any police station or any ANC structures locally, provincially and nationally – the same as Dr NDZ.”
Dispute over ANC internal processes
Another issue before the court was Dlamini-Zuma’s contention that Mbalula should not have approached the high court before exhausting internal ANC processes.
Sethene rejected that argument, saying Dlamini-Zuma had failed to identify an ANC rule requiring members to pursue internal remedies before instituting defamation proceedings.
“Our contention is simple: there is nowhere that Dr NDZ cites any ANC policy which makes provision for her breath-taking proposition.”
The ANC constitution, Sethene argued, did not prevent members from pursuing legal action when they believed they had been defamed.
He described Dlamini-Zuma’s position as “untenable”.
Analogy sparks laughter
Sethene sought to demonstrate what he regarded as the absurdity of requiring Mbalula to first resolve the dispute within the ANC by comparing it to a hypothetical divorce involving ANC members.
“In the ANC, we have got people who are married to each other.
“Picture a situation where tomorrow, if one wants to file for divorce, [the other] will say, ‘Hayi, you can’t divorce me now. You have to go exhaust internal structures in the ANC’.”
The comparison prompted the presiding officer to interject.
“I take your point, Mr Sethene, but it perhaps takes it a bit too far,” the judge said, prompting laughs in the courtroom.
Sethene replied: “Well, that’s how comical it is.”
Sikhakhane objects to courtroom remarks
Dlamini-Zuma’s counsel, Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, subsequently objected to the tone of some of Sethene’s submissions.
Sikhakhane argued that the parties to the litigation should not be subjected to “insults” during the proceedings.
“I would urge my friends to desist from those snide comments about litigants,” Sikhakhane said.
Judgment in the matter has been reserved.