In a high-stakes interview, Errol Naidoo outlines an ambitious legal strategy aimed at taking the ANC to court — potentially escalating the matter to the Constitutional Court and, if necessary, international legal forums. The case, he argues, would not be framed as routine political opposition but as a constitutional challenge to systemic governance failure. From allegations of collapsing healthcare systems and corruption within school nutrition programmes to rising gang violence, farm murders, and the long-standing controversy around cadre deployment, the proposed action seeks to test whether patterns of negligence and corruption can cross the threshold from political mismanagement into prosecutable constitutional violations. Central to the strategy is a coordinated legal campaign reportedly backed by senior counsel, attorneys, and constitutional experts working pro bono. The legal questions are complex and unprecedented: Can widespread corruption or sustained administrative failure qualify as crimes against humanity under domestic or international law? Does the Constitution impose enforceable duties on the state that, if persistently breached, create liability beyond electoral consequences? The discussion examines the school feeding scheme scandal through the lens of children’s rights, probes allegations of police corruption and organised crime infiltration, and interrogates whether farm murders and food security concerns trigger heightened state obligations. It also touches on the fiercely debated National Health Insurance framework and whether policy design itself can be challenged as constitutionally deficient. If such litigation were to succeed, the implications would extend far beyond one party. It could redefine political accountability by testing the limits of constitutional enforcement against systemic governance breakdown. Critics argue that courts are not substitutes for voters, while supporters contend that when institutional failure becomes entrenched, legal remedies must be explored. Either way, the case would force a national reckoning over the boundaries between political responsibility, legal culpability, and constitutional duty, potentially reshaping how government performance is judged in South Africa’s democracy.