Court Allows National Dialogue Nominees to Continue Participating Pending Appointment Letters
The urgent High Court application brought by Jacinta Ngobese Zuma, Dr Gordon Lesley Rolls and Mamile Sikhosana against President Cyril Ramaphosa and other respondents has resulted in an interim court order allowing the currently nominated representatives to continue participating in the National Dialogue Steering Committee while their appointment letters are finalised.
The applicants argue that they were excluded from the National Dialogue without consultation or a lawful process despite participating in the process since March 2026. According to the applicants, the matter raises important questions about representation, procedural fairness and the integrity of the National Dialogue process.
During the hearing, the parties agreed to amend the draft order so that it referred specifically to the finalisation and issuing of appointment letters, rather than suggesting that representation itself remained unresolved.
One of the most striking moments came when the presiding judge remarked:
“There is no point in this body not being able to talk when their main purpose is to talk.”
The court heard that the Immigration Sector had completed its nomination process and submitted the names to the relevant National Dialogue structures, but that the administrative process required to finalise and issue appointment letters had not yet been completed.
The judge observed that the issue before the court was not whether the sector had nominated representatives, but rather the completion of the appointment process. The parties subsequently agreed that the nominated representatives should continue participating until their appointment letters are finalised and issued.
The court removed the matter from the urgent roll pending finalisation of the appointment process. The order provides that the currently nominated candidates through the recognised National Dialogue sectors may continue participating in the work of the Steering Committee until their letters of appointment are finalised and issued. No costs order was made.
The applicants maintain that the case is about ensuring lawful representation and protecting the credibility of the National Dialogue process, while the court’s interim order preserves their participation as the administrative appointment process is completed.
