Cheat Sheet: Why Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla and Nhlamulo Ndhlela were REALLY kicked out of the MK Party

Forget the nitty-gritties over whether they did or didn't put a foot wrong around the death and funeral of their friend and MP Muzi Ntshingila. Those confusing details mask a much bigger story over power and factionalism.

You may have seen the latest uMkhonto weSizwe Party drama: Jacob Zuma’s party has expelled his daughter, Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, and former spokesperson, Nhlamulo Ndhlela.

On the surface, the story is about what they allegedly did before and after the recent death of MK Party MP Muzi Ntshingila. But those reported details are confusing at best. Here we break down what’s really going on and how Ntshingila’s death appears to have become a proxy for a much bigger fight over loyalty, authority, factionalism, and who actually controls the party.

The MK Party has expelled Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela as party members with immediate effect. They’d previously lost senior roles in the party, but were still ordinary members. This now completely puts them out in the cold.

The announcement was made by party secretary-general Sibonelo Nomvalo at a press briefing in Sandton on Thursday, 18 June. Zuma-Sambudla’s father, Jacob Zuma, was there too, and the party is framing this decision as proof it’s not a family affair. It says Zuma himself made the decision under a clause in the party constitution that gives him, as party president, broad powers to appoint, remove, and direct party leaders.

Nomvalo said the pair no longer have any rights, privileges, responsibilities, or authority associated with MK Party membership.

MK Party Leader Jacob Zuma and his daughter Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla. Photo: Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, X

Who was Muzi Ntshingila, and why is he at the centre of this?

Muzi Ntshingila was an MK Party MP who died on 4 June after an illness, aged 43. He was not one of MK’s loudest public figures, but he was not a nobody either. He joined Parliament after MK’s 2024 election breakthrough and served as an MK whip. He also sat on Parliament’s trade and industry committee and the powerful Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence.

He was reportedly very close to Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela. Ndhlela has described Ntshingila as one of their closest allies in the party and claimed Ntshingila chose to stay with them in Cape Town rather than live in his official parliamentary accommodation.

They saw him not just as a fellow MK MP, but as part of their inner circle. It also helps explain why Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela may have felt they had a special role in his care when he became ill, even if the MK Party and Ntshingila’s family clearly did not agree.

Nhlamulo Ndhlela and Muzi Ntshingila in a picture posted by Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, to her X account.

Wait, they all lived together? Does that mean Dudu and Ndhlela are a thing?

Ndhlela has denied being in a romantic relationship with Zuma-Sambudla.

He has said they have known each other since childhood, including from their families’ time in exile in Mozambique. He has framed their closeness as political, historical and familial rather than romantic. (Zuma-Sambudla married businessman Lonwabo Sambudla in 2011 and was reportedly in divorce proceedings by 2017, but she has kept the double-barrelled surname.)

Of course, that has not stopped speculation. Political gossip is one of South Africa’s most renewable energy sources.

What matters for this story is less whether Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela are romantically involved and more that they operated as a very tight unit. Ntshingila was also reportedly part of that close circle. That helps explain why the party saw their conduct around his illness and death as part of a broader pattern, not as an isolated misunderstanding.

The MK Party says Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela were involved in moving an ailing Ntshingila to another health facility without his family’s knowledge.

Nomvalo said neither of them had authority to involve themselves in matters relating to Ntshingila’s illness or to separate him from his family. The party also says concerns were raised about Ntshingila’s personal belongings being removed from his parliamentary residence without his family knowing.

Then came the funeral dispute.

According to the party, MK parliamentary leader John Hlophe instructed Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela not to attend the funeral proceedings. He also reportedly told them not to make public comments that could further upset the family, especially comments about Ntshingila’s marital status.

The party says they ignored those instructions.

Zuma-Sambudla then publicly posted about the matter, according to the party, accusing party leaders of trying to stop her and Ndhlela from attending the memorial and funeral. Zuma-Sambudla claimed they had been threatened with violent removal if they attended.

The MK Party leadership then used the incident to act against both of them.

Muzi Ntshingila and Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla in a picture posted to her X account after he had passed.

That is one way to look at it, and probably the version Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela would prefer you to focus on.

But the party’s move seems to be about much more than Ntshingila’s illness. The allegations around him gave MK a concrete incident to point to, especially because it involved a grieving family, medical care and funeral tensions. But the expulsion statement also folded in a whole pile of older complaints about the pair: factionalism, unauthorised public statements, parallel structures and “competing centres of influence”.

In other words, Ntshingila’s death appears to have lit the match, but the room was already full of petrol.

For months, Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela had been accused of acting as if they had their own command centre inside MK, complete with their own messaging, loyalists, and their own view of who really got to speak for the party. The Ntshingila dispute gave the leadership a sharper, more emotionally charged reason to act on grievances that were already there.

So yes, the official story is about discipline and respect for a grieving family. But the bigger story is that MK had clearly wanted to deal with Dudu and Ndhlela for a while. This was the moment it finally did.

Very much so.

Ndhlela’s problems did not begin with the Ntshingila fallout. In mid 2025, MK parliamentary leader John Hlophe removed him from the party’s parliamentary whip team, accusing him of disrespectful communication, undermining unity, factional conduct and obstructing parliamentary communications. So, the “difficult comrade” file had been open for a while.

A year later, he also got the boot as spokesperson. The party accused him of acting without proper authority, convening and addressing media briefings without approval, misrepresenting the party’s positions, and participating in activities outside authorised party programmes. One major flashpoint was a media briefing last month where he allegedly announced himself as part of a new, powerful structure called the MK Institute, apparently without Zuma’s approval. The party refuted the announcement and axed him as spokesperson on 18 May 2026.

Zuma-Sambudla also had major baggage inside the party. She resigned as an MP in November 2025 after allegations that she had recruited party members and even her own family members (yikes) to fight in the Russia-Ukraine war. She has denied knowingly misleading anyone, and MK said at the time that her resignation was not an admission of guilt.

So by the time Ntshingila died on 4 June 2026, both she and Ndhlela were already under a cloud. The cloud then developed thunder, lightning and a press briefing in Sandton. 👀

It later turned out Dudu had not been entirely stripped of power. Awkward.

After she resigned as an MP in November 2025, everyone assumed she was politically neutered within the party – just a basic member. Not quite. Apparently, without many senior leaders realising how much power she still held, she was confirmed as the party’s official signatory to Parliament in February 2026.

This was massive: The signatory is authorised to send the party’s official instructions to Parliament, including communications regarding the deployment and firing of MPs. So while Zuma-Sambudla no longer had a seat in Parliament, she still had access to the pen that could affect who did.

Secretary-General Sibonelo Nomvalo later said he only discovered in his second week in the job that Zuma-Sambudla still held signing powers in Parliament, inside the party and at the Electoral Commission of South Africa.

Nomvalo and the party’s leadership appear to view this as part of the same problem they had with Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela more broadly: they believed the pair were bypassing formal structures, creating competing centres of power, and acting as if they had authority that others in the party had not approved of.

PS. It is not clear from public reporting exactly when Zuma-Sambudla was formally removed as MK’s signatory. The party said on 5 June that she was only an ordinary member with no leadership role, but the cleanest public break came on 18 June, when she was expelled with immediate effect and stripped of any rights, responsibilities or authority linked to the party.

Yup. The secretary-general apparently had to “discover” who had signing powers. In a political party. That has 58 MPs.

This points to a bigger problem: MK has often looked deeply disorganised for a party with serious electoral support. There have been fights over leadership positions, confusion over who may speak for the party, legal battles involving expelled MPs, and repeated claims of parallel structures. Plus, a revolving door of those in key positions. Disorganised doesn’t even begin to cover it.

How have Zuma-Sambudla and Ndhlela reacted?

Zuma-Sambudla has reacted loudly and publicly, which is very on brand for someone who calls herself “Dudu Grenade” online.

Before the announcement, she posted that MK leaders who did not understand the party constitution were “constitutional delinquents”. She also suggested Ndhlela would act as a spokesperson or media representative.

After the party moved against her, she posted that MK could expel her as an ordinary member but could not expel her as a founding member.

It is the kind of response that says: you may have taken my membership card, but you will not take my origin story.

Ndhlela’s response has been less visible. News24 said it tried to contact him about the party’s allegations involving Ntshingila’s transfer, but his phone went unanswered.

Yes, MK did extremely well for a new party in the 2024 national elections.

It came third nationally, became the biggest party in KwaZulu-Natal and sent dozens of MPs to the National Assembly. That was a huge achievement for a party launched only months before the vote, powered largely by Zuma’s personal appeal and anger at the ANC.

But electoral success is one thing. Running a stable party is another.

Since its big election result, MK has repeatedly been in the news for internal fights, expelled MPs, leadership reshuffles, court battles and contradictory messages from different power centres. That does not mean its support will collapse overnight. Zuma still has a powerful base, especially in KwaZulu-Natal.

But the risk is obvious. Voters may tolerate drama when a party is new and disruptive. They may be less forgiving if the drama starts looking like the main product.