SA Rugby has launched a review into all the documentation involved in the processes of the Border Rugby Union’s recent election and the legitimacy of the newly appointed executive.
Amid a troubled build-up in preceding weeks, the union held its AGM in KuGompo City on Saturday, attended by a quorum of 34 of its 49 voting members.
The mother body has now stepped in after pre-election executive member Asanda Simoyi wrote a letter to SA Rugby on Monday, asking for intervention due to procedural issues.
Simoyi, who was the union’s deputy president, assumed the role of acting president after the resignation of Zuko Badli on Thursday.
Badli vacated office after he was appointed to a new role on the SA Rugby executive.
Simoyi wants SA Rugby to declare the elections invalid and issue a directive to the union’s stakeholders prohibiting recognition of the new structure and recognising his previous formal postponement of the AGM.
Simoyi argued that he had postponed the AGM on Friday, stating that clauses within the BRU handbook gave him the right to do so as the union’s acting president.
In his postponement, Simoyi cited unsure membership of Winter Rose and Ntlaza Lions, uncertainty as to whether the union had 24 or 25 affiliated clubs, stating it affected the quorum.
Among other matters, he also cited nomination list timelines not being met and the verification list of eligible clubs not being presented.
Also, the nomination notice period being 29 days and 10 hours, not the required 30 full days.
Despite Simoyi’s missive, on Friday executive members, clubs and districts sent a petition to SA Rugby against the postponement.
An agenda had been signed by vice-president Siphokazi Njani and sent out on Friday, and the AGM sat two days later, chaired by her.
Simoyi asserts Njani had no powers to do so.
SA Rugby issued a legal opinion on Monday, around Simoyi’s claims and numerous other factors.
The Dispatch has seen the brief written by SA Rugby’s head of legal and compliance, Chantal du Pisani.
It touched on who lawfully assumed presidential authority after Badli’s resignation, whether Simoyi validly postponed the AGM, whether Njani had authority to proceed with and chair the meeting, and whether unresolved membership and voting-right disputes affected the legitimacy of the election.
It further noted that clubs raised numerous objections before the AGM regarding nominations, candidate verification, voting eligibility, governance compliance and the 30-day requirement.
BRU’s new president, Theo Mvalo, argued that the union’s constitution stated that the deputy president assumed the responsibilities of the president in his absence.
He said it did not, however, determine what happened when the president has vacated his office.
Mvalo said the reason Njani stepped in was that Simoyi was allegedly “absconding” from his duties by refusing to release the AGM agenda and attempting to halt the meeting.
On the issue of uncertainty whether the union had 24 or 25 clubs, Winter Rose’s voting rights were resolved at the AGM itself, “confirming only 24 clubs had voting eligibility”.
He said 34 out of 49 eligible voters were present, which was 70%, and auditors and the electoral officer were also present.
“This is a clear indication that the vast majority of members were clearly aware of the AGM and had no intention of it being postponed,” Mvalo said.
“Members demanded change, and expressed this demand the best way they knew how, at the polls.
“The 15 votes which were not present did so as an exercise of their own democratic right to stay away, and not through any other reason.”
On the 30-day nomination period issue, Mvalo said: “Border work with 30 calendar days, with no prescribed hours.
“It is clear that from the 3rd of July to the 2nd of August is indeed 30 days.”
On Tuesday, in her correspondence, Du Pisani said: “Saru will revert to the parties once its review of all documentation has been concluded.
“At this stage, Saru has not reached any final conclusion regarding the validity or invalidity of the AGM, the elections purportedly held on August 2 2026, or any decisions arising therefrom.
“As indicated in the opinion, those issues remain open to further consideration.
“Saru acknowledges receipt of the various responses, supplementary submissions, minutes, transcripts and supporting documentation submitted following circulation of Saru’s legal opinion dated August 3 2026.
“Saru confirms that all submissions received will be considered collectively and as part of a complete assessment of the governance, constitutional and procedural issues presently before it.
“No single submission will be considered in isolation by Saru’s legal panel.”
Simoyi had also written to the provincial department of sport regarding the matter.
Head of department Nomatamsanqa Gobozi-Nibe told the Dispatch on Wednesday that they did not have the legal mandate to determine or pronounce on the constitutionality or otherwise of internal meetings, elections or governance processes of autonomous sporting federations, including Border.
Daily Dispatch
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.