This article is based on original reporting by Keanan Hemmonsbey for the Daily Maverick.

Swimming South Africa’s attempt to stop the emergence of a breakaway national water polo body has faltered in the Western Cape Division of the High Court, following a series of missteps that severely undermined its case.

The national governing body sought an urgent interdict to prevent the newly formed South Africa Water Polo (SAWP) from operating. However, a combination of legal contradictions, flawed arguments, and judicial scrutiny left Swimming SA on the back foot.

From Opposition to Concession

Initially, Swimming SA’s legal strategy was based on the claim that SAWP required its consent to exist. But by the end of court proceedings on Wednesday, the federation had effectively conceded that SA Water Polo was entitled to exist independently.

Judge Judith Cloete questioned Swimming SA’s shifting positions throughout the hearing. At first, Swimming SA accused SAWP of falsely presenting itself as the official governing body. But later, its legal team admitted that SAWP was merely a “parallel body,” not a usurper—an important distinction.

Judge Cloete highlighted the contradiction and pressed Swimming SA to clarify its stance. Ultimately, the federation acknowledged that SAWP had the right to operate independently, although it argued that SAWP would face “consequences” for doing so, including exclusion from competitions governed by international and national sporting authorities.

Legal Definitions Under Scrutiny

Swimming SA attempted to rely on the National Sport and Recreation Act (NSRA), which defines a national federation as the sole authority for a sport recognised by the relevant international body. But the judge pointed out that SAWP was not claiming to be a federation, but a national body—a separate and permissible entity under South African law.

This distinction proved central. Judge Cloete challenged Swimming SA to identify any legal statute that explicitly prohibited the existence of another national body alongside a recognised federation. None was provided.

International and Olympic Implications

Swimming SA also argued that SAWP’s formation had disrupted preparations for key events, notably the 2025 World Aquatics Championships in Singapore, where both South Africa’s men’s and women’s water polo teams are expected to compete.

According to Swimming SA, athletes affiliated with SAWP would be ineligible for events like the Olympics or World Championships unless SAWP gained recognition from World Aquatics and the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC). However, Judge Cloete deemed these points irrelevant to the interdict, since such decisions fall outside the court’s remit and lie with the relevant sports authorities.

Constitutional Rights and Freedom of Association

SA Water Polo’s legal defence leaned on Section 18 of the South African Constitution, which protects freedom of association. The argument: individuals and organisations are free to associate with whom they choose, and no law prohibits the formation of SAWP.

SAWP’s lawyers also used a letter of intent—published in March 2025—to argue that the organisation never claimed to replace Swimming SA. There was no attempt to mislead stakeholders or present SAWP as the governing body of water polo in South Africa.

Membership Matters

Swimming SA claimed that its authority was being undermined by SAWP recruiting its former members. But the judge dismissed this as insufficient grounds for an interdict, noting that individuals and clubs had every right to leave one organisation and join another.

Crucially, Judge Cloete emphasised that she could not compel individuals to return to Swimming SA, especially as they were not part of the legal proceedings.

A Waiting Game

A final decision on Swimming SA’s urgent application is still pending and could take up to three months. Until then, SA Water Polo remains operational, and the broader implications of this legal challenge continue to ripple through South Africa’s aquatics community.

As the sport grapples with issues of governance and representation, the case highlights growing tensions over administrative control and athlete autonomy in South African water polo.

Note: This article is based on original reporting by Keanan Hemmonsbey, published by Daily Maverick.

Follow Waterpolo 360 on Facebook, Instagram and X