NFP asserts no member is exempt from disciplinary action after KZN's Shinga secures court interdict

KWAZULU-NATAL Social Development MEC Mbali Shinga obtained an urgent court interdict to prevent her party from holding a disciplinary inquiry against her that was scheduled for this past weekend.

In her court application, she expressed fears that the attempts to hold a disciplinary inquiry against her are a pretext to formalise grounds for her removal from her position in the KZN provincial legislature and, by extension, the provincial government. She alleged that if this occurred, it would result in instability in the provincial executive of the province.

Shinga is the provincial chairperson of the National Freedom Party (NFP) and is an MEC under the Government of Provincial Unity (GPU).

Yesterday the NFP said the matter went ahead in court without the party's representation. It added that no members of the party were exempt from disciplinary action.

In her court papers, Shinga highlights concerns about the process of disciplining her, pointing to a letter dated June 26, which called her to a disciplinary inquiry and was signed by party president Ivan Barnes. She argues that the party constitution does not grant Barnes the authority to take such action but instead assigns this role to a prosecutor appointed by party structures.

The Pietermaritzburg High Court ruled in her favour, deeming the holding of the disciplinary inquiry unlawful and barring it from being held on this past weekend or any other day pending the finalisation of a review application. In the review application, Shinga seeks an order declaring the decision to institute disciplinary proceedings against her be reviewed and set aside.

The court ruled that the notice for the disciplinary hearing issued on June 26 was unlawful and void. “The first respondent (NFP) and the second respondent (party president Ivan Barnes) and any other person acting through them are hereby interdicted and restrained from proceeding with the disciplinary inquiry scheduled for July 5 or any other date,” the ruling stated.

Shinga has been at loggerheads with other party leaders over attempts to remove her from her position to create space for Barnes to take over as the NFP Member of the Provincial Legislature. A few weeks ago, this tension spilled into public view as Shinga and another leader of the party sparred on public radio.

The court papers explained that on party lists, Shinga was number one on the list of people to be deployed to the provincial legislature, while Barnes was number one on the list of people to be deployed to parliament. The party secured one seat in the KZN legislature, allowing for Shinga to be sworn in, but it failed to secure any seats in parliament, leaving Barnes without deployment.

She stated that as a result of this, there were efforts to remove her. The party's National Executive Committee issued a directive that the provincial list must be revised to make provision for the president to become number one on the provincial list. Shinga said she complied with this directive and submitted it to the Speaker of the provincial legislature.

However, she claimed that the Speaker responded and stated that the party list did not comply with one of the conditions. The party was instructed to submit the revised party list in the correct format and to ensure that necessary affidavits were sent.

On June 17, she received a letter from lawyers calling her to appear for a disciplinary inquiry on allegations of misconduct against her. Some days later, she was sent a letter signed by Barnes informing her that she would be appearing for a disciplinary inquiry on July 5.

She said she believed the inquiry was “subterfuge to replace me as a member of the provincial legislature.” “I will not be afforded substantial redress in due course should the second respondent (Barnes) succeed in his machinations to unconstitutionally remove me.”

According to the charges against her, Shinga was charged for failing to submit the revised party list to the Speaker, for stating on a radio station that she would not obey the party mandate, and for failing to give feedback to the party leadership on the list issue.

In a statement issued by the Office of the NFP President, the party said it reserves its rights and would refrain from commenting on the substantive aspects of the matter, as it was currently sub judice. It claimed that the interim urgent court application was brought before the judiciary without proper service to the party’s attorneys of record.

As a result, the matter proceeded in court without the party’s knowledge or representation, the party said. It alleged that the person who received the papers did not pass them on because that person is implicated in NFP factional disputes.

“There was no service at all of the court papers on the party president, who is cited as a second respondent, which is irregular. The NFP strongly contests the legitimacy and urgency of the matter and will vigorously oppose the court application.

The party asserts that no member is exempt from internal disciplinary processes, and attempts to bypass such mechanisms undermine the integrity of the party’s governance,” it said.

THE MERCURY