When Mbali Shinga, MPL and MEC for Social Development in the Government of Provincial Unity, faced a sudden roadblock, the National Freedom Party (NFP) found its plan to replace her with party president Ivan Barnes in the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature called into question. The provincial speaker Nontembeko Boyce ruled on 12 June 2025 that the paperwork submitted by the party flouted the Electoral Act, leaving the NFP scrambling for a solution.
Background to the NFP list dispute
Shinga rode to the top of the party’s candidate roster in the 2024 general election, landing the number‑one spot on the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) reserve list for the KZN Legislature. As the sole NFP MPL in the province, she also chairs the party’s provincial structure, a dual role that makes her a political linchpin.
In February 2025, the party’s National Executive Committee tabled a proposal to reshuffle the lists across strategic municipalities, Parliament and the KZN Legislature. The National Working Committee signed off on the plan, eyeing a power shift that would see Barnes move from party president to provincial parliamentarian.
Legislature ruling and Electoral Act hurdles
The NFP’s national leadership issued a directive on 6 June 2025, instructing Shinga to amend the list and submit a revised version by 11 June 2025. Acting secretary‑general Bheki Xaba sent a formal communique underscoring the deadline.
But the speaker’s letter, dated 12 June 2025, said the submission “failed to meet the requirements set out in the Electoral Act.” Specifically, Item 19(b) caps replacements at 25 % of a party’s original list – that’s 5.5 candidates out of 22 on the reserve list. The NFP had only replaced one name, leaving the paperwork technically incomplete.
"There is only one name on the reviewed NFP party list as compared to twenty‑two on the IEC reserve candidate list," Boyce wrote. "The amendment therefore breaches the 25 % replacement limit."
Shinga’s camp argued the move was a tactical adjustment, not a wholesale replacement, but the speaker’s office was unmoved. The result: the legislature could not process the amendment, and Shinga remained on the list.
Court intervention and withdrawal of discipline
Meanwhile, the NFP pressed disciplinary charges against Shinga, accusing her of sabotaging the amendment process to cling to both her MPL and MEC posts. The case took a dramatic turn on 4 July 2025, when the Pietermaritzburg High Court (the Pietermaritzburg High Court) declared the decision to bring charges “unlawful, void and of no force and effect.”
Following the ruling, the party withdrew the disciplinary proceedings on 6 August 2025, but not before filing a fresh objection to Shinga’s separate application seeking an injunction against future disciplinary action. In that main case, Barnes is listed as a respondent.
"The court’s decision forced us to reconsider our strategy," Xaba told reporters. "We respect the judiciary and will continue to pursue internal governance reforms, but we must do so within the law."
Wider party turmoil over other MECs
The Shinga saga is just one thread in a broader tapestry of discord. Earlier this year NFP leader Irvin Barnes (who many suspect is the same person as Ivan Barnes, though the spelling differs in party releases) called for the suspension of Education MEC Sipho Hlomuka and Health MEC Nomagugu Simelane over alleged corruption involving contracts awarded to companies tied to their families.
Simelane fired back, saying, "The farm received financing through an Ithala Bank loan in 2008, many years before I became Chairperson of the Provincial Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in June 2016. I was a junior official in a completely different department at the time and had no decision‑making influence."
Political analyst anonymous warned, "Barnes is leading a cohort that now appears more powerful than him. The NFP must clean up its image if it hopes to stay relevant after the next elections."
What this means for KZN politics
At its core, the dispute highlights a clash between party ambition and statutory constraints. If the NFP cannot navigate the 25 % replacement rule, its strategic roster reshuffle could stall, leaving Barnes on the sidelines while Shinga retains her dual roles.
For voters, the drama may reinforce perceptions of internal fragmentation within smaller parties, potentially driving support toward larger, more stable entities. On the other hand, the NFP’s willingness to confront alleged corruption among rival MECs could win it some credibility among constituents tired of patronage politics.
Looking ahead, the party faces two immediate challenges: (1) filing a compliant amendment that respects the Electoral Act, and (2) managing the fallout from the court’s injunction while keeping its reform agenda afloat.
Key Facts
- June 12 2025: KZN Legislature speaker rules NFP’s amendment documents non‑compliant.
- July 4 2025: Pietermaritzburg High Court declares disciplinary charges against Shinga unlawful.
- August 6 2025: NFP withdraws disciplinary proceedings but continues legal battle over future actions.
- Electoral Act limits candidate replacements to 25 % of the original list (max 5 out of 22).
- Party president Ivan Barnes is slated to replace Shinga if the list amendment succeeds.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why can’t the NFP simply replace Mbali Shinga on the list?
South Africa’s Electoral Act caps replacements at 25 % of a party’s original candidate list. With 22 reserve names, only five candidates may be swapped. The NFP submitted a change that replaced just one name, which the speaker deemed insufficient to meet the statutory threshold, rendering the amendment invalid.
What was the court’s reasoning for calling the disciplinary charges unlawful?
The Pietermaritzburg High Court found that the NFP’s internal disciplinary process violated procedural fairness provisions and exceeded the party’s constitutional powers. Consequently, the ruling nullified the charges and forced the party to withdraw them.
How does this dispute affect the NFP’s standing ahead of the next election?
The internal wrangle could erode voter confidence, especially if supporters view the leadership as disorganized. However, the party’s anti‑corruption stance against other MECs might attract voters seeking accountability, creating a mixed outlook.
Can Ivan Barnes still become a legislator without the list amendment?
Not through the current list. He would need either a by‑election, a vacancy arising in the legislature, or a new, compliant amendment that respects the 25 % rule before the next election cycle.
What are the implications for the other MECs under investigation?
If the NFP’s calls for suspension lead to formal investigations, the Education and Health MECs could face removal, reinforcing the party’s narrative of cleaning up governance. Yet, any action must still navigate provincial processes and possible legal challenges.
Pinki Bhatia
October 3, 2025 AT 22:35I understand how frustrating it must be for the NFP to juggle legal limits while trying to reshuffle leadership. The 25% rule really puts a ceiling on what they can do, and it looks like they missed the mark. It’s clear that Shinga is in a tight spot, balancing her MPL duties with the party’s ambitions. I hope the party finds a way to respect the law while still pursuing its reform agenda.
NARESH KUMAR
October 9, 2025 AT 17:28Exactly, the legal constraints are a real hurdle. 👍 The party should use this as a learning moment and maybe involve more grassroots voices in future decisions. 🌱 Transparency will build trust, and that’s what South Africans deserve.
Purna Chandra
October 15, 2025 AT 12:22Honestly, the whole episode reeks of orchestrated theatrics designed to mask deeper machinations within the NFP. One cannot help but wonder whether the party elite are exploiting loopholes while the rank‑and‑file are left to foot the bill of political theater. The Electoral Act is not a suggestion; it’s a binding framework, yet the NFP appears to treat it like a flexible script. Their attempt to slip Ivan Barnes into the legislature betrays a blatant disregard for procedural integrity. If you peel back the layers, you see a pattern of power‑hoarding that mirrors the very corruption they claim to fight.
Mohamed Rafi Mohamed Ansari
October 21, 2025 AT 07:15The Electoral Act, Section 19(b), explicitly caps the proportion of replacements on a party’s reserve list at twenty‑five percent, a safeguard intended to preserve the electorate’s original intent. In the case of the NFP, the reserve list comprised twenty‑two candidates, which mathematically allows for a maximum of five substitutions. The submission submitted by the party only altered a single name, thereby falling well below the statutory threshold. Legally, this creates a deficiency rather than a compliance issue, as the law requires a minimum level of change to qualify as a valid amendment. The speaker’s ruling on 12 June 2025 was therefore grounded in a literal interpretation of the Act’s language. Furthermore, the timing of the amendment – a mere five days after the party’s internal directive – raises questions about procedural diligence. Courts have consistently held that procedural fairness encompasses both the substance and the timing of filings. The Pietermaritzburg High Court’s decision to nullify the disciplinary charges against Shinga underscores the importance of adhering to due process, even within party structures. While the NFP may argue that the amendment was a “tactical adjustment,” the legal framework does not accommodate such qualitative assessments. It is also noteworthy that the party’s internal governance documents do not override statutory provisions; they operate in a subsidiary capacity. Consequently, any internal decision that conflicts with the Electoral Act is rendered ineffective. The party’s subsequent withdrawal of disciplinary proceedings suggests an acknowledgment of the legal misstep. However, the continued pursuit of a compliant amendment indicates a strategic intent to realign leadership within the boundaries of the law. In practice, the NFP will need to identify at least five eligible candidates for replacement, ensuring that each meets the eligibility criteria stipulated by the IEC. This process will likely involve extensive consultation with party members to avoid further legal challenges. Lastly, the episode serves as a cautionary tale for smaller parties attempting rapid internal reconfigurations: compliance with electoral legislation must remain paramount to maintain legitimacy.