Zuma changed his Durban candidate in 12 days. The list fight goes deeper.

News analysis · 15 September 2026

Twelve days after MK presented Zandile Hlophe-Mkhwanazi as its eThekwini mayoral candidate, Jacob Zuma replaced her. The more consequential question is what happened to the councillor names submitted for the election.

The party’s September announcement linked a leadership shake-up to an investigation into alleged interference with candidate lists. Members had already protested outside its Durban offices, according to EWN, saying the submissions did not reflect the choices made in their wards.

That complaint goes beyond disappointment at losing an internal contest. If a nomination was changed, members are entitled to know who authorised it, under which party rule and at what point in the process. If it was not changed improperly, the party should be able to show the records that settle the dispute.

A new candidate, an unresolved allegation

Hlophe-Mkhwanazi was unveiled on 28 August. The 9 September announcement put Mxolisi Phakathi in her place. Reporting also described her removal from the national party liaison committee and the disbanding of the Presidential Task Team.

MK has said it will investigate the allegations. That is an acknowledgement that the complaints require an answer; it does not establish that a particular person manipulated a list.

The distinction is especially important for Hlophe-Mkhwanazi. Losing a candidacy or a committee position is a political decision. A finding that someone falsified or improperly substituted nominations requires evidence and a process through which that person can respond.

Nor does a replacement at the top necessarily explain the position of every ward candidate below it. A mayoral campaign has a public face. A council is made up of many people who will vote, serve on committees and exercise authority over the municipality.

Why the list matters outside MK

It is tempting to treat this as an internal family argument and move on. Residents who do not support MK still have a stake in knowing who could govern their city.

The useful comparison is between the selections members say they made, the party’s authorised final decisions and the names submitted to the Electoral Commission. Differences need explanations. They are not, on their own, proof of illegality: parties have rules and procedures for finalising nominations, and those rules also need to be examined.

A clear account would identify the affected nominations, record the reasons for any substitutions and distinguish an authorised change from an alleged abuse. Publishing only the name of a replacement candidate leaves those questions largely untouched.

There is a fairness test in both directions. Members should not be expected to campaign for a process they cannot understand. The people accused of interfering should not have guilt assigned to them by a crowd or a headline.

A city the polls put within reach

The row comes while public polling suggests MK could become a major force in eThekwini’s council. Ipsos’s June–July study put it on 55% among registered respondents who expressed a party preference, with the DA at 17% and ANC at 10%.

A different July picture from the Social Research Foundation and The Common Sense, reported by Daily Maverick, put MK at 33%, the DA at 23%, ANC at 18% and IFP at 16% under its turnout model.

The difference is large enough to change the entire governing conversation: an outright majority in one picture, bargaining with other parties in the other. These are survey findings, with sampling uncertainty and different methods, rather than seats already won.

Either way, selecting candidates is serious work for a party asking to run a metro. The quality of those selections would matter long after campaign posters came down.

What would count as an answer?

An investigation needs a scope, a responsible person and a result members can understand. A statement that action will be taken against wrongdoing leaves open how the party will establish what happened and when it will report back.

For now, the replacement is confirmed and the list manipulation remains alleged. The strongest next development would be a documented comparison of the disputed nominations, accompanied by the accounts of those involved.

Zuma has changed the face of the Durban campaign. The members who protested were asking about the names behind it. They are still owed that answer.

www.thepeoplesa.com