ANC secretary-general is challenging his suspension from the party.
Suspended ANC secretary-general Ace Magashule has filed his appeal arguing that the South Gauteng High Court in Joburg erred in finding against him.
Magashule is challenging his suspension from the ANC and insists he was also correct in suspending the President a few months.
In the notice to appeal filed in the South Gauteng High Court, Magashule outlined the grounds of appeal which stems from the ANC’s NEC step aside rule.
“The high court erred in finding that Rule 25.70 is not unconstitutional in relation to the ANC constitution.
“The court, having accepted that Rule 25.70 forms part of the matrix of the chapter in the ANC constitution dealing with “management of organisational discipline” ought to have considered the rule in its proper context.
“Had it done so, the court would have found that:the ANC constitution prescribes that appendix 3 of the constitution which the constitution prescribes applies to the “management of organisational discipline”.
“Neither appendix 3 nor rule 25.70 exclude rule 25.70 from the provisions of appendix 3.
“The constitution does not exclude any rule under the chapter, including Rule 25.70, from the principles enunciated in Appendix 3.
“The principles of temporary suspension, including a member’s right to apply to the NDCA to set aside the temporary suspension enshrined in Rule 25.68 is applicable to all suspensions, including a temporary suspension in terms of Rule 25.70.
“To the extent that Rule 25.70 excludes application of Appendix 3 and Rule 25.68 it is unconstitutional,” say the court papers.
The papers said the high court erred in declaring that President Cyril Ramaphosa’s suspension was not valid.
To the extent that the court did not find a basis for the declaration sought, it ought to have denied the relief sought.
In the absence of a prayer by the respondents for the declaration of validity, the court ought not have made such declaration.
“There is respectfully a reasonable prospect of the applicant succeeding in an appeal and leave to appeal should be granted in respect of the order made by the full court on July 9.
“The costs of the application for leave to appeal should be granted in favour of the applicant, alternatively, they ought to be in the cause in the appeal,” said the court papers