National Dialogue nominees accuse Cyril Ramaphosa of sidelining them

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s flagship national dialogue faces a legitimacy crisis amid allegations that properly nominated steering committee representatives were sidelined while the Presidency failed to issue formal appointment letters to participants already involved in the process.

The allegations are contained in an urgent application before the Gauteng high court in Johannesburg, which threatens to cast an early shadow over Ramaphosa’s much-publicised nation-building initiative intended to bring together civil society, labour, business and community organisations to tackle South Africa’s social and economic crises.

Applicants identified as Gordon Lesley Rolls and Precious Mamile Sikhosana, along with seven others, are seeking declaratory and interim relief against Ramaphosa, the National Dialogue Steering Committee and the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac).

They want the court to compel Ramaphosa to recognise them as legitimate sector representatives and prevent their exclusion from steering committee activities pending the finalisation of formal appointment processes.

They argue that the absence of official appointment letters should not invalidate nominations made through recognised sector processes, especially where nominees had already participated in meetings, elections and policy discussions linked to the national dialogue.

In court papers, they claim sector nomination processes had already been completed and accepted before disputes around appointment letters emerged.

“The applicants represent sector-nominated individuals who have been duly nominated through recognised sector processes for participation in the national dialogue steering committee,” the founding affidavit states.

The application further states that the national dialogue process is governed by frameworks recognising that nominees are first identified and selected by their sectors before appointment letters are formally issued.

The dispute is largely about the role of the Presidency in issuing formal letters of appointment.

In one of the annexures attached to the application, a WhatsApp exchange allegedly between a steering committee nominee and a national dialogue official appears to suggest that the Presidency was responsible for issuing appointment letters.

“Yes sir, the appointment letters are not in my control, Presidency takes care of that,” the official allegedly wrote in response to queries about delayed appointments.

The relief sought is intended to preserve the integrity, inclusiveness and representativeness of the National Dialogue process.

—  Founding affidavit of Gordon Lesley Rolls, Precious Mamile Sikhosana and seven others

The same exchange further states:

“Please don’t think the lack of letter invalidates you in any way as a steering committee member, you are fully recognised.”

They argue these communications demonstrate that affected nominees were recognised internally despite not receiving formal appointment documentation from the Presidency.

According to the court papers, the Immigration Sector — where they were nominated — underwent mediation processes facilitated through Nedlac after disputes delayed the establishment of its steering committee structures.

They claim that following mediation they were invited into steering committee processes, introduced to other members and allowed to participate in engagements and internal elections.

“After the successful mediation held for the sector the applicants were invited to the National Dialogue Steering Committee and were introduced to the rest of the members and they were welcomed and participated in all engagements and processes,” the affidavit states.

The court papers further claim they participated in management committee elections and discussions involving the adoption of policies and governance documents before concerns about appointment letters surfaced.

They now want the court to declare that the letters sent to them were inconsistent with the national dialogue principles set out by Ramaphosa and that their nominations remain valid despite outstanding formalities.

They are also seeking an order directing Ramaphosa to finalise and issue appointment letters to all duly nominated applicants within seven days of the court order.

In another annexure attached to the court papers, organisations involved in the Immigration Sector accused the National Dialogue process of excluding them despite ongoing engagement with organisers and mediators.

The correspondence states that organisations were deeply concerned after steering committee lists were finalised without them being given an opportunity to formally submit nominees.

“It is therefore troubling that the Steering Committee list has now been finalised and released without our organisations ever being afforded the opportunity to formally submit the name of our nominee,” the document reads.

The organisations argued that the situation contradicted commitments to an “inclusive, citizen-led process”.

Additional correspondence attached to the court papers suggests that some National Dialogue officials acknowledged concerns regarding appointment letters and indicated the issue had already been escalated to the president.

In an email attached to the application, National Dialogue Steering Committee secretary Mabalane Mfundisi allegedly wrote that the matter had been raised with the president and that officials were awaiting a response.

“We have raised with the president the requirement on his part to address letters of appointment for those affected. We await the response from the president in this regard,” the email states.

Another response from Nedlac, project lead Edgar Mabothe acknowledged receipt of the concerns and stated that officials “share the sentiments expressed” in the applicants’ correspondence.

The legal challenge seems to raise questions about whether administrative failures and unresolved governance disputes could undermine the legitimacy of Ramaphosa’s National Dialogue project before it fully gains momentum.

They argue that excluding nominees solely because appointment letters had not yet been issued would undermine the integrity and representativeness of the process itself.

“The relief sought is intended to preserve the integrity, inclusiveness and representativeness of the National Dialogue process,” the affidavit states.

The matter is expected to be heard on July 7.