The Democratic Alliance ate a humble pie after the Pretoria High Court dismissed their cadre deployment case with costs.
This follows after the ruling party argued that cadre deployment must not be declared unconstitutional and unlawful.
According to the court the DA’s case is built on speculation and conjecture after it contends that the ANC’s cadre deployment policy has facilitated state capture, systemic corruption and the deterioration of service delivery.
Earlier, the ANC complied with the Constitutional Court ruling and handed over cadre deployment records to the DA, accusing the opposition party of deliberate misrepresentation, threats and false expectations of what might be contained in the records.
This follows after the ruling party lost its appeal in the Constitutional Court last week against an earlier court ruling to hand over all cadre deployment records to the official opposition relating to the cadre deployment committee stretching back to 2013, when Ramaphosa was the ANC deputy president.
ANC national spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri said on Wednesday, 21 February 2024, the ANC has welcomed the order granted by the Pretoria High Court on ANC’s cadre deployment.
The ANC has also called on the DA to publicly reveal all its cadre deployment records. Bhengu-Motsiri said the ANC has put their cadre deployment records on the ruling on the ruling party’s website. She also said that ANC secretary general Fikile Mbalula will engage the masses about this matter tomorrow during a press conference. Bhengu-Motsiri also said the DA has a can of worms which included appointing a mayor who earned over a R1 million without qualifications.
“The party had nothing to hide and that a number of the records for the period 2018 to 2021 were handed over to the Commission on State Capture from 2021, including testimony by President Cyril Ramaphosa and other national officials of the party,” Bhengu-Motsiri said.
Meanwhile, DA leader John Steenhuisen confirmed that the DA will appeal the ruling.
"We respect the judgment. However, we do believe that a number of errors in law and interpretation have been made in this particular judgment," Steenhuisen said.
Comments