NDC STATEMENT ON MITIGATION AND AGGRAVATION FINDINGS
29 February 2012
1. Comrades Julius Malema,
Sindiso Magaqa and Floyd Shivambu were charged and found guilty of
misconduct in terms of rule 25 of the ANC Constitution. The findings
were confirmed on appeal and the National Disciplinary Committee (NDC)
has heard evidence in mitigation and aggravation of sanction.
2. Comrade Floyd Shivambu showed
remorse with respect to the charges of swearing at a journalist. With
respect to all other charges the charged members maintained that they
had nothing wrong, that the charges were politically motivated and that
they did not accept the findings of either the NDC or the National
Disciplinary Committee of Appeal.
3. The NDC considered the
seriousness of the misconduct and has imposed sanctions commensurate
with this. A summary of the findings of the NDC is attached for the
information of ANC members and the public.
4. The NDC also reminds all ANC
members that, at its public announcement of the outcome of the
disciplinary hearing, extensive reference was made to the ANC
Constitution; the aims, objectives and character of the ANC; the
injunctions of the September 2010 National General Council and the
prevailing circumstances during the main hearing. The NDC again reminds
all ANC members of their solemn commitment at the time of joining the
ANC.
I solemnly declare that I will
abide by the aims and objectives of thee African National Congress set
out in the Constitution , the Freedom Charter and other duly adopted
policy positions, that I am joining the organization voluntarily and
without motives of material advantage or personal gains, that I agree to
respect the Constitution and the structures and to work as a loyal
member of the organization, that I will place my energies and skills at
the disposal of the organization and carry out tasks given to me, that I
will work towards making the ANC an even more effective instrument of
liberation in the hands of the people, and that I will defend the unity
and integrity of the organization and its principles, and combat any
tendency towards disruption and factionalism.
5. In the light of public
statements made by the ANC Youth League and Respondents following the
main NDC hearing and the NDCA hearing, the NDC advises members to
faithfully observe their solemn commitment and to fully familiarize
themselves with the ANC Constitution.
Derek Hanekom
Chairperson of the ANC NDC
AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS NATIONAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
Public Announcement on the Disciplinary hearings of:
FLOYD SHIVAMBU Respondent
JULIUS MALEMA Respondent
SINDISO MAGAQA Respondent
Luthuli House, Johannesburg 29 February 2012
PREAMBLE
1. The National Disciplinary
Committee (NDC) was instructed by the National Disciplinary Committee of
Appeal (NDCA) on 4 February 2012 to hear evidence in mitigation and
aggravation of sanction in the cases involving comrades Sindiso Magaqa,
Floyd Shivambu and Julius Malema.
2. The NDC has considered the
evidence of witnesses and that of the charged members in mitigation of
sanction, as well as evidence in aggravation of sanction.
3. The NDC has discharged its
duty without fear or favour and has not been swayed by any outside
party. All its decisions have been made on the evidence before it and a
complete Record of the proceedings is available to support its
conclusion.
4. At its public announcement of
the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, the NDC referred extensively
to the ANC Constitution; the aims, objectives and character of the ANC;
the injunctions of the September 2010 National General Council and the
prevailing circumstances during the hearing. In addition, the NDC
specifically drew the attention of ANC members to the solemn commitment
made by members at the time of joining the ANC.
5. In the light of public
statements made by the ANC Youth League and the Respondents following
the main NDC hearing and the NDCA hearing, the NDC advises members to
faithfully observe their solemn commitment and to fully familiarise
themselves with the ANC Constitution.
6. The ANC has the right at all
times to explain and clarify its disciplinary proceedings and approaches
to discipline. However, in all disciplinary proceedings,
representatives, members, structures and employees of the ANC should
respect the sub judice principle and not comment on the specifics of the
cases. This would avoid any semblance of the perception that their
utterances could be construed to influence the outcome.
FINDING
A. Background
1. On 10 November 2011 the
National Disciplinary Committee (“NDC”) found the Respondents guilty of
committing various acts of misconduct in terms of Rule 25.5 of the ANC
Constitution and imposed a sanction in each case.
2. The Respondent, Sindiso
Magaqa, was found guilty of contravening Rule 25.5(o) of the ANC
Constitution for issuing, in his capacity as SG of the ANC Youth League,
a derogatory and potentially defamatory statement about comrade Malusi
Gigaba, a member of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the ANC
and the Minister of Public Enterprises.
3. The Respondent, Floyd
Shivambu, was found guilty of contravening Rule 25.5(o) of the ANC
Constitution for swearing at a journalist and for issuing, in his
capacity as spokesperson of the ANC Youth League, a statement on
Botswana in contravention of ANC policy.
4. The Respondent, Julius
Malema, was found guilty of contravening Rules 25.5(c) and (i) of the
ANC Constitution for expressing his personal views at a press conference
of the ANC Youth League on 31 July 2011 which sought to portray the ANC
government and its leadership under President Zuma in a negative light
in relation to the African agenda and which had the potential to sow
division and disunity in the ANC, and for expressing his personal views
on Botswana which contravened ANC policy.
5. The Respondents appealed to
the National Disciplinary Committee of Appeal (NDCA) against the
findings and raised legal and factual arguments regarding the sanction
imposed by the NDC.
6. On 4 February 2012 the NDCA
dismissed the appeals against the findings involving the three
respondents listed above, but provided the following directive in
respect of sanction:
6.1 As prayed for by the
Appellants, the matter is referred back to the NDC to determine an
appropriate sanction after hearing evidence in mitigation and
aggravation of sanction that the parties may wish to present.
6.2 Such hearing shall be
concluded by the NDC within 14 (fourteen) days from date hereof and the
NDC is directed to provide appropriate guidelines to the parties for the
expeditious finalisation of the process.
6.3 In terms of the articulation
between the ANC Constitution and Article 11.2 of the ANC Youth League
Constitution, any sanction imposed by the NDC resulting in the
imposition of a penalty of suspension of membership or expulsion from
the ANC shall be applicable to the Appellant’s membership of the ANC
Youth League.
EVALUATION BY THE NDC
7. In determining appropriate
sanctions, the NDC took into consideration evidence led during the
hearing, the evaluation of evidence in mitigation and aggravation of
sanctions and the approach in the ANC Constitution towards sanctions.
Respondents’ arguments
8. A substantial part of the
evidence given by the Respondents in mitigation of sanction was directed
at reducing their blameworthiness. They sought to offer justification
for the commission of the offences and to make out a case that the
charges were political in nature, which required a political solution
and not disciplinary action.
Comrade Sindiso Magaqa
9. In the case of comrade
Magaqa, it was argued that the statement was issued because the ANC
Youth League was provoked by comrade Gigaba’s characterisation of the
debate on nationalisation of mines as reckless.
10. This argument was dismissed
by the NDC in its Finding and confirmed by the NDCA. Consequently, the
NDC does not consider it necessary to restate its Finding. Furthermore,
the NDC is of the view that there is nothing “political” about making
derogatory and potentially defamatory statements about a member of the
NEC.
Comrade Floyd Shivambu
11. In the case of comrade
Shivambu, the NDC has already dismissed the argument that the comrade
was provoked by the journalist and this Finding was confirmed by the
NDCA.
12. The NDC does not accept that there is anything “political” about swearing at a journalist.
13. With regard to comrade
Shivambu’s conviction on the second count for issuing a statement on
Botswana in contravention of ANC policy, the NDC reject the accusation
that there is a political motive in the charge. The ANC has a policy on
Party-to-Party relations and the Respondent contravened that policy, as
already stated in the NDC finding on 10 November 2011 and subsequently
confirmed by the NDCA.
Comrade Julius Malema
14. With regard to the charges against comrade Malema, the NDC does not accept that there is a political motive in the charges.
15. The NDC Finding which was
confirmed by the NDCA, was that comrade Malema had publicly expressed
his personal views in contravention of ANC policy, thereby sowing
divisions within the organisation and bringing the organisation into
disrepute.
16. Full reasons for the finding
against comrade Malema were set out in the Finding and the NDC does not
consider it necessary to restate these reasons.
All three Respondents
17. The arguments by all three
Respondents that they were convicted for acting in a representative
capacity and for utterances and statements made by a collective or for
repeating the statement of the ANC Youth League were also dealt with at
length in the NDC Findings and were rejected. The NDCA subsequently
confirmed the Findings of the NDC.
18. The argument advanced by the
Respondents that they submitted resolutions of their Congress to the
ANC leadership timeously, was not accepted by the NDC because according
to the evidence led the resolutions were submitted after the commission
of the offenses in question.
19. Having considered the
arguments raised by the Respondents, the NDC finds that there was no
justification for their actions and utterances. Consequently, their
blameworthiness is not reduced.
20. The evidence of comrades
Andile Lungisa and Abner Mosaase was premised on the understanding that
comrade Malema was found guilty for acting as a representative of the
ANC Youth League and for repeating an ANC Youth League statement.
21. After listening to their
evidence, the NDC is convinced that these two comrades did not read the
Findings of the NDC and the NDCA because if they had, they would have
understood the basis upon which comrade Malema was found guilty. For
this reason the NDC finds that their evidence is not helpful to the
Respondents, particularly comrade Malema.
22. The NDC also does not accept
comrades Mosaase’s evidence that in the ANC Youth League matters of ill
discipline are dealt with politically. The ANC Youth League
Constitution sets out an elaborate formal procedure for dealing with
misconduct.
23. The above arguments advanced
by all three Respondents do not offer any mitigation, but instead offer
a defense against findings which were made by the NDC and confirmed by
the NDCA.
The relationship between the ANC and its members
24. The ANC owes a duty not only
to its members, including the Respondents, but to all South Africans to
ensure that discipline is maintained in pursuit of the fundamental goal
“to construct a united, non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and
prosperous South Africa”.
25. For this reason the NDC has
taken into account the evidence given by the Complainant’s witnesses in
the main disciplinary hearings about the negative impact that the
Respondents’ misconduct has had on South Africa and its people for the
purpose of determining an appropriate sanction.
26. As a voluntary organisation,
the ANC has the power to regulate its internal affairs in terms of the
ANC Constitution, including the right to refuse membership, and to
suspend or expel any of its members.
27. Rule 25 of the ANC
Constitution requires all members, without exception, to abide by the
Constitution of the NEC and sets out acts, which constitute misconduct.
Without the power to discipline members in the event of misconduct the
ANC runs the risk that members could distort the character, purpose, and
historic mission of the ANC.
28. All Disciplinary Committees,
including the NDC and NDCA, are structures created in terms of the ANC
Constitution for the purpose of maintaining discipline within the ANC.
Their decisions must be respected by all members, structures and organs
of the ANC.
29. The ANC Constitution
promotes the principles of freedom of speech and free circulation of
ideas and information within its ranks, provided that a member does not
contravene the disciplinary code as set out in Rule 25.5 of the ANC
Constitution and with regard to Rule 25.2(a).
30. Rule 25.5 set out
twenty-eight (28) acts of misconduct in respect of which disciplinary
proceedings may be invoked and instituted against ANC members. Acts of
misconduct which seek to sow division or a breakdown of unity in the ANC
and which bring the organisation into disrepute are specifically
intended in the ANC Constitution to protect the core values, character,
unity and historic mission of the ANC.
31. The relationship between the
ANC and the three Respondents is contractual in nature. When the
Respondents joined the ANC they took the membership oath; they were
fully aware of the provisions of the ANC Constitution; they considered
themselves bound by the ANC Constitution and they undertook to respect
the ANC Constitution and its structures.
32. The potential for sanction
arising from breach of discipline, including suspension or expulsion
from the ANC, is part of the consideration that a person accepts in
return for admission to the ANC as a member. A member is fully aware of
this possibility at the outset when he or she joins the ANC.
33. As set out in the ANC
Constitution the ANC is a voluntary organization, which people join
willingly because they subscribe to its aims, objectives, culture,
ideals and value system. This is the glue that has held the ANC together
for a hundred years. No one is forced to join the ANC or compelled to
remain in the ANC. In the same spirit, the ANC should not be obliged to
associate with any member or to retain the active participation of any
member, without exception, who pays scant regard to the membership oath
of the ANC, its character and unity, aims and objectives and the
policies of the organisation.
Factors taken into consideration in deciding an appropriate sanction
34. In deciding an appropriate sanction, the NDC took into consideration the following factors:-
34.1 The seriousness of the offence;
34.2 The presence of aggravating factors;
34.3 Any previous findings against the respondents;
34.4 The presence of mitigating factors;
34.5 The concept of a graduated approach to sanctioning;
34.6 The concept that the
sanction must take into consideration the interests of the ANC, the
respondents and society at large; and
34.7 The sanction must fit the offence.
The seriousness of the offence
35. Comrade Sindiso Magaqa was found guilty of contravening Rule 25.5 (o) of the ANC Constitution.
36. Comrade Floyd Shivambu was found guilty on two counts of contravening Rule 25.5 (o) of the ANC Constitution.
37. Comrade Julius Malema was found guilty of contravening Rules 25.5 (c) and (i) of the ANC Constitution.
38. The NDC is of the view that
all three Respondents were found guilty of committing serious offences
which warrant either suspension or expulsion from the organisation.
The presence of mitigating factors
39. The Respondent, comrade
Sindiso Magaqa, is a first offender and is a newly appointed member of
the NEC of the ANC Youth League.
40. Comrade Floyd Shivambu sincerely apologised for swearing at the journalist. He also apologised at his hearing last year.
41. Although evidence was led at
his hearing of the commission of a similar offence where the ANC had to
pay money to a third party for his misconduct, comrade Floyd Shivambu
is treated as a first offender for purposes of sanctioning.
42. The evidence of
long-standing political involvement and good character given by comrade
Soviet Lekganyane in comrade Malema’s favour has been noted as a
mitigating factor.
The presence of aggravating factors
43. Save for an apology from
comrade Shivambu with respect to one of the charges, all three
Respondents did not show any remorse or acceptance of wrong-doing.
44. The Respondents missed the
opportunity to present argument in mitigation of sanction and instead
challenged the findings of both the NDC and the NDCA. They largely
confined their argument to insisting that the NDC and NDCA had erred in
its findings.
Details of any previous findings against the respondents
45. The Respondent, comrade
Julius Malema, is a repeat offender. In May 2010 he was found guilty of
contravening Rule 25.5 (i) of the ANC Constitution.
The concept of a graduated approach to sanctioning
46. As stated above, the NDC is
of the view that the offences committed by all three Respondents are
sufficiently serious to warrant either a period of suspension or
expulsion.
47. The NDC is of the view that a
fine, reprimand or other corrective sanction would, in the
circumstances, not fit the offence, would be inappropriate and would
send the wrong message to ANC members and the wider community.
The concept that the sanction must take into consideration the interests of the ANC, the Respondents and society at large
48. The Respondents enjoy
membership of the ANC, which is a liberation movement and also the
ruling party and are in the privileged position of being members of the
National Executive Committee of the ANC Youth League.
49. It is the responsibility of the ANC Youth League to inculcate the values of discipline and loyalty amongst its members.
Consideration of the case of Comrade Sindiso Magaqa
50. Comrade Magaqa did not
testify at his disciplinary hearing. The NDC, in its discretion, gave
him the benefit of doubt that he would have expressed remorse if he had
testified. The NDC also adopted a remedial approach to his sanction by
directing him to apologise to comrade Gigaba.
51. In his mitigation hearing, comrade Magaqa:-
51.1 Did not show any remorse;
51.2 Testified that the view of the ANC Youth League was to deal with ill-discipline politically;
51.3 The ANC Youth League would
only apologise to comrade Gigaba if he was prepared to meet with the ANC
Youth League to explain his views on nationalisation.
51.4 Testified that he agreed with the Youth League statement.
52. The NDC finds that comrade
Magaqa has shown no remorse and his evidence has aggravated his case.
The NDC also finds it extraordinary that the Secretary General of the
ANC Youth League could even consider saying that issues of
ill-discipline in the ANC Youth League are dealt with politically when
the ANC Youth League’s own Constitution provide an elaborate and formal
procedure for dealing with acts of misconduct.
53. Comrade Magaga should have
realized that pronouncements by him as Secretary General of an organ of
the ANC would carry a lot of weight and would readily be accepted by
Youth League members as authoritative.
54. Comrade Magaqa’s unwarranted
personal attack against comrade Gigaba was prejudicial to the integrity
and repute of the ANC and constituted a serious offence.
55. The fact that he is a first offender and newly elected member of the NEC of the ANC Youth League count in his favour.
Consideration of the case of Comrade Floyd Shivambu
56. The Complainant did not lead any evidence in aggravation of sanction against comrade Floyd Shivambu.
57. Comrade Shivambu has shown
no remorse for the Botswana statement which transgressed ANC policy and
which differed significantly from the ANC Youth League’s 24th Congress
resolution on Botswana.
58. Comrade Shivambu’s
misconduct brought the ANC into disrepute and undermined the ANC’s
commitment to respect the sovereignty of states. In the view of the NDC,
both offences committed by comrade Shivambu are serious.
59. Comrade Shivambu has shown remorse for swearing at the journalist.
60. For the purpose of sanctioning, he is regarded as a first offender.
Consideration of the case of Comrade Julius Malema
May 2010 findings
61. The NDC noted that in respect of the May 2010 sanctions, the corrective elements of the sanctions were not implemented.
62. The NDC’s package of
sanctions imposed in 2010 is severable. The first part relates to
remedial action and was designed to correct comrade Malema’s behaviour
and make him a responsible leader. The second part serves as a deterrent
that he should refrain from conduct that would bring the ANC into
disrepute and sow division in the organisation.
63. The NDC finds nothing inconsistent about these sanctions because they were intended to achieve two different purposes.
64. With regard to the second
part of the sanctions, comrade Malema was fully aware that should he be
found guilty for contravening Rule 25.5 (i) of the ANC Constitution
within two years, he ran the risk of having his ANC membership suspended
“for a period to be determined by the NDC”. Consequently, the NDC finds
that there was an obligation on comrade Malema to observe, at least for
two years, the terms of his suspended sanction and that his failure to
do so obliges the NDC to impose the sanction of suspension of his ANC
membership.
65. Although comrade Malema
committed an extremely serious offence, he pleaded guilty, showed
remorse and expressed a willingness to submit to corrective action.
Present disciplinary hearing
66. The Complainant led aggravating evidence against comrade Malema with regard to the current convictions.
67. Whilst comrade Malema
testified that he subjected himself to the discipline of the ANC and
that he would comply with any sanction imposed by the NDC, the NDC is
particularly disturbed by the following evidence given by comrade Malema
at the mitigation hearing:-
67.1 In his evidence-in-chief,
comrade Malema said that he did not agree with the Findings of the NDCA
and repeated it under cross- examination.
67.2 He said that he was not
persuaded by the NDCA findings and will continue to challenge the
outcome internally because he was unfairly found guilty.
67.3 He said that the
disciplinary proceedings will come to an end but the real battle will
start after that when the ANC has to persuade the youth.
68. In the NDC’s view, this
evidence is indicative of comrade Malema’s unrepentant attitude and
non-acceptance of the findings of the disciplinary machinery of the ANC,
particularly the NDCA.
69. The NDC accepts that as a
tribunal of first instance in this case, comrade Malema has a right not
to agree with the Findings of the NDC because the ANC Constitution gives
him and the other comrades the right to appeal to the NDCA.
70. However, Comrade Malema’s
refusal to accept the Findings of the NDCA, which confirm the findings
of the NDC, is clearly untenable.
71. Comrade Malema should have
known or have been advised that Rule 25.6 (a2) of the ANC Constitution
declares decisions of the NDCA as final, except that the NEC may, in its
discretion, review such a decision.
72. When comrade Malema joined the ANC he undertook in his membership oath to respect the ANC Constitution and its structures.
73. As stated above, both the NDC and the NDCA are structures that are created in terms of the ANC Constitution.
74. The NDC is of the view that
if comrade Malema is not prepared to accept final decisions of the NDCA,
then the likelihood of him respecting the ANC Constitution is remote.
75. This conclusion is
reinforced by his utterance that after the conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings, which are conducted in terms of the ANC
Constitution, the real battle will start when the ANC will still have to
persuade the youth. As the President of an organ of the ANC responsible
for mobilizing the youth behind the ANC, this statement, in the view of
the NDC, constitutes a threat and is tantamount to holding the ANC to
ransom.
76. Moreover, in his application
in August 2011 to quash the charges, one of the arguments raised by
comrade Malema was that the ANC Constitution was unconstitutional. In
its ruling, the NDCA confirmed that he did raise this argument.
77. Comrade Malema is a repeat
offender. He has now been found guilty of two serious offences in under
two years whilst under suspension after his 2010 Finding; has shown no
remorse; is not prepared to be disciplined by the ANC and is not
prepared to respect the disciplinary machinery of the organisation.
78. Based on comrade Malema’s
own evidence the NDC finds that comrade Malema is, in effect, reneging
on his membership oath and is not prepared to respect the ANC
Constitution.
79. With regard to comrade
Malema’s plea not to have his membership taken away, the NDC believes
that any period of suspension imposed as a sanction would not, as the
Complainant’s representative submitted, achieve the purpose of
rehabilitating the comrade.
80. In the view of the NDC,
comrade Malema’s misconduct of bringing the ANC into disrepute and
sowing division within its ranks is very serious.
81. The ANC Constitution demands
that discipline be enforced without exception. The cumulative effect of
comrade Malema’s past and present offences, coupled with his own
evidence of lack of remorse and disrespect for the ANC Constitution and
its structures, particularly the NDCA, has left no room for the NDC to
consider his misconduct as anything but extremely serious.
82. In exercising its duty to
balance the interest of the Respondent on the one hand and that of the
ANC and its membership as an organization on the other hand, the balance
weighs in favour of the ANC to impose the sanctions as stated below.
Sanctions
83. The ANC Constitution under
Rule 25.8 (a) provides for penalties or sanctions, which may be imposed
by a disciplinary committee, for proven violations of the Constitution,
other relevant instruments, principles, norms, policies and decisions of
the ANC. Such sanctions will include reprimand, payment of compensation
and/or the performance of useful tasks, remedial action and suspension
of membership or expulsion from the ANC.
84. Rule 25.8 (b) provides that a
disciplinary committee may suspend the imposition of any of the above
penalties or sanctions, with or without conditions, for a period to be
determined by such disciplinary committee.
85. The NDC evaluated and gave
due weight to all the evidence and submissions, within the context of
the above framework of assessment and imposed appropriate sanctions in
line with the offences committed.
Sanction in the case of Comrade Floyd Shivambu
86. Having weighed and
considered all factors, the NDC imposes the following sanction in
respect of the two acts of misconduct of which cde Shivambu has been
found guilty:
86.1 Cde Shivambu’s membership is suspended for a period of three (3) years.
86.2 In accordance with the NDCA
finding of 4 February 2012, this sanction is applicable to cde
Shivambu’s membership of the ANC Youth League. Consequently, he shall
vacate his position as a member of the National Executive Committee of
the ANC Youth League.
87. Cde Shivambu has the right to appeal to the NDCA against this sanction within 14 days.
Sanction in the case of Comrade Julius Malema
88. Having weighed and
considered all factors, the NDC imposes the following sanction in
respect to the May 2010 findings and the two acts of misconduct of which
cde Malema has now been found guilty:
88.1 With regard to Cde Malema’s
disciplinary hearing held in May 2010, his membership is suspended for a
period of two (2) years.
89. In respect of the present disciplinary hearing:
89.1 Cde Julius Malema is expelled from the ANC.
90. In respect of both findings:
90.1 In accordance with the NDCA
finding of 4 February 2012, this sanction is applicable to cde Malema’s
membership of the ANC Youth League. Consequently, he shall vacate his
position as President of the ANC Youth League.
91. Cde Malema has the right to appeal to the NDCA against this sanction within 14 days.
Sanction in the case of Comrade Sindiso Magaqa
92. Having weighed and
considered all factors, the NDC imposes the following sanction in
respect of the act of misconduct of which the respondent has been found
guilty:
92.1 Comrade Sindiso Magaqa’s membership is suspended for a period of three (3) years.
92.2 This sanction shall be
suspended for a period of three (3) years and will be implemented if cde
Magaqa is found guilty of any act of misconduct in terms of the ANC
Constitution during the period of suspension.
92.3 In accordance with the NDCA
finding of 4 February 2012, this sanction is applicable to cde Magaqa’s
membership of the ANC Youth League.
92.4 Subject to his right of
appeal, cde Magaqa shall make a public apology to comrade Malusi Gigaba
within fifteen (15) days. Failure to do so will result in Clause 92.1
coming into operation with immediate effect.
93. Cde Magaqa has the right to appeal to the NDCA against this sanction within 14 days.
Dated at LUTHULI HOUSE, JOHANNESBURG this 29th day of February 2012
Chairperson: Derek Hanekom
On behalf of ANC National Disciplinary Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment