SCA Grants Jacob Zuma and MK Party Leave To Appeal Case Against SABC Over Use of GNU Term, SA Amused

• The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has ruled on the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party's application against the Gauteng High Court
• The party and its leader, Jacob Zuma, appealed a decision by the court in a case against the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC)
• South Africans shared their thoughts on the SCA's decision, noting that the party and Zuma have a history of taking matters to court

Briefly News journalist Byron Pillay has dedicated a decade to reporting on the South African political landscape, crime, and social issues. He spent 10 years working for the Northern Natal Courier before transitioning to online journalism.

FREE STATE – The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party has been granted permission to take the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) back to court over its use of the term, Government of National Unity (GNU).

The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg dismissed with costs the party’s bid in January 2025. Jacob Zuma’s party argued that the conduct of the SABC in using the term was unconstitutional and invalid.

Read also

SAHRC confirms it will take Gayton McKenzie to court over racist tweets, South Africans divided

The party filed an intention to appeal on 19 May 2025, with the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) now granting that, paving the way for the former president and his party to challenge the High Court finding.

What does the MK Party allege?

Thabo Kwinana, the attorney for the two applicants, stated that the High Court erred in its January judgment. In the application to appeal the decision, the applicants claimed that the court failed to address critical constitutional issues and that SABC’s conduct breached its duty.

They argued that its duty was to provide accurate, impartial, and independent information to the public.

“The devastating impact of the impugned judgment is that it failed in multiple ways to resolve the dispute between the parties as defined by both sides in the pleadings,” Kwinana said.

Applicants take issue with the judge’s characterisation of the matter

Kwinana also raised concern with Judge Denise Fisher’s characterisation of the case, saying it was a mere political debate.

Read also

Stanley Mathabatha steps down from ANC Limpopo Chairperson post, SA shares mixed reactions

“The learned judge failed to grasp the legal and constitutional bases of the application. This resulted in extraneous issues not even raised by either party being entertained. And also, the essential issues are being ignored.”

The matter was heard by Justices Tati Makgoka and Erica Weiner, and their ruling now sets aside the Gauteng High Court’s earlier dismissal.

How did South Africans react to the decision?

Social media users weighed in on the SCA’s ruling, sharing amusing reactions, noting that Zuma and his lawyers have a reputation for losing court cases. South Africans previously described the legal attempts as a waste of time.

Themba Mazibuko said:

“This 'granting of leave to appeal' thing, isn't it a win for Dali Mpofu? Just asking because I thought he never wins in court🤔.”

Letsoapo Fobo stated:

“I still can't figure out what their role is in South African politics.”

Read also

SACP to contest 2026 elections, even if expelled from tripartite alliance, SA split by the decision

Sandile Nzuza added:

“Good. It always makes me happy when the court allows the MK Party or Zuma to make their case, knowing that their case is senseless🤣. Is this the case where Zuma wants the SABC to stop saying GNU? 🤣. Please allow Mpofu to argue this case.”

Titus Podile claimed:

“The Supreme Court just wants to give Jacob Zuma the go-ahead to keep wasting his money.”

@malalaveve said:

“Lol, finally the courts are not captured.”

@TshwaaneSello suggested:

“They just want to finish his money💰.”

MK Party slams Constitutional Court ruling

Briefly News reported that the party was recently in court as it challenged President Cyril Ramaphosa's decisions.

The Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the president, something that the party did not agree with.

The party claimed that the ruling was further proof that the court was not for the ordinary people.

Source: Briefly News