A tricky situation unfolded at the ANC's headquarters, Luthuli House, after the Sheriff of the High Court in Johannesburg rocked up on Monday to seize assets worth more than R102 million from the ruling party.
A white truck branded "Sheriff" and another unmarked vehicle were seen outside the party's headquarters on Monday morning to implement the court order, but the ANC officials barred them from entering the building.
In just minutes, the front door of the building was rolled down to prevent men dressed in overall access to execute their duties. Nothing has been taken out of the building as yet.
JUST IN: ANC officials have this morning prevented the sheriff of the court from attaching assets belonging to the party in line with the recent court order.
— The Star (@TheStar_news) December 4, 2023
Picture: Itumeleng English/ Independent Newspapers. pic.twitter.com/lVyj5KZqb8
One of the guards stationed at the building said the truck arrived in the morning but said nothing was seized.
This is after the ANC failed to settle its bill against Ezulweni Investments, a KwaZulu-Natal-based printing and marketing company that supplied it with posters and banners in the 2019 elections.
This follows two previous lower court rulings, in 2020 and 2022, allowing Ezulwini to seize assets worth more than R102 million from the ANC after the party refused to pay its hefty debt to the company.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed, with costs, the ANC's appeal against a high court judgment that the party was responsible for the outstanding amount for the election material.
The court had also rejected an application by the ANC to lead further evidence during its appeal in the form of a forensic report, ostensibly done by EMS Forensics, into the procurement.
However, the ANC said it will appeal the decision of the SCA in the Ezulweni matter in the Constitutional Court of South Africa.
According to the ANC, after studying the judgment, the SCA did not consider new evidence that emerged from a forensic report that revealed crucial evidence.
It said that the evidence made it plain that there was no authorisation for the transactions in question, and certain implicated individuals misrepresented their positions and authority.
IOL Politics