'Making false statements under oath will not be countenanced': Electoral Court dismisses Khumalo's case

The Electoral Court was scathing of uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party founder Jabulani Khumalo in its judgment dismissing his application to be reinstated as leader of the party. 

Khumalo had asked the court to set aside an Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) decision removing him and recording former president Jacob Zuma as president of the party. 

Khumalo had claimed Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla forged his signature and sent a letter to the commission requesting it to change MKP’s particulars by removing his name and replacing Zuma as the party's leader. MKP denied this allegation and stated that Khumalo signed the letter in dispute on April 9 at a meeting in which Zuma-Sambudla and other witnesses were present. 

In its judgment on Wednesday dismissing his application with a punitive costs order, the court said the MK Party and the IEC had demonstrated that Khumalo had perjured himself in his affidavits.

“He alleges that Ms Zuma-Sambudla is not part of the MKP leadership. Yet on February 24 2024, he advised the commission by way of a letter that MKP has appointed the ILC [interim leadership core], listing Ms Zuma-Sambudla as one of its members.” 

The court said Khumalo had denied Zuma was the president of MKP.

“Yet he made that assertion in a media statement to which the respondents (MK Party and Zuma) referred this court.”

The court said in his founding affidavit, Khumalo stated Zuma was not a member of MKP.

“Yet he attached a letter to the same affidavit suspending Mr Zuma from MKP pending disciplinary proceedings.” 

The court said though it was contended on Khumalo’s behalf that he always referred to Zuma as the president because he was the former president of South Africa, it was clear from the media statement that Khumalo referred to Zuma as the president of MKP.

Khumalo had denied being the author of the letter in dispute.

“Yet he signed it in the presence of Ms Zuma-Sambudla and an eyewitness who deposed to a confirmatory affidavit to the respondents’ answering affidavit. He failed to respond to these allegations in his replying affidavit,” the court said. 

Because of these reasons, Khumalo’s application also constituted an abuse of the court’s process and a waste of its judicial economy and the resources of those who opposed his application, it said. 

Ordinarily, to encourage parties to exercise their political rights, the court did not grant costs orders.

The court said it would be unfair to leave those who opposed Khumalo’s application out of pocket under these circumstances. It said they had incurred legal costs opposing an application that “should not have seen the light of day”. 

“A punitive costs order against Mr Khumalo is the most appropriate way of censuring Mr Khumalo’s conduct and sending a message to the public that making false statements under oath and abuse of this court’s process will not be countenanced.”

The court also said it was persuaded that as an expelled member of the MKP, he lacked standing to bring this application. Khumalo had not challenged his expulsion internally or in another appropriate forum. 

“His expulsion therefore stands.” 

The court said only members of a political party may approach the court for relief for breach of that political party’s constitution.

“As matters stand, Mr Khumalo is no longer a member of MKP. He does not seek relief in relation to breach of the MKP constitution. He therefore lacks standing to seek relief against the commission in relation to the leadership of the MKP.” 

The court said email correspondence exchanged between Khumalo and the commission revealed that the commission had made it clear to him that only the photo of a party leader may appear on the ballot paper.

“He still wrote to the commission asking it to place Mr Zuma’s photo as the face of MKP on the ballot paper. He subsequently informed the commission that he does not want to change the recorded leader for MKP.” 

The court said on being told again that only the recorded leader could appear on the ballot paper, Khumalo had responded to the commission that he would sort the issue out. 

“Subsequently, Ms Zuma-Sambudla sent [the disputed letter] to the commission.” 

The MK Party and Zuma contended expert evidence was necessary to prove the allegation that the signature on the disputed letter was forged.

“It is inappropriate for counsel for Mr Khumalo to compare the two letters from the bar with reference to the writing style, formatting, letterheads and different signatures. The court places no reliance on these submissions,” the court said.

TimesLIVE