In spite of social media criticism among supporters of former president Jacob Zuma, the Electoral Commission of SA (IEC) has defended itself for pursuing the MK Party-Zuma matter at the Constitutional Court. Picture: Itumeleng English Independent Newspapers
In spite of social media criticism among supporters of former president Jacob Zuma, the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) has defended itself for pursuing the uMkhonto weSizwe (MKP)/Zuma matter at the Constitutional Court.
On Monday, the apex court ruled that Zuma was not eligible to be one of the MKP’s parliamentary candidates following a majority court ruling that set aside an earlier Electoral Court judgment which had found nothing wrong with Zuma’s parliamentary candidacy.
Two weeks ago, during the court proceedings, lawyers representing Zuma had indicated that IEC Commissioner Janet Love had acted improperly when she pronounced her opinion on Zuma’s eligibility to be a parliamentary candidate due to his 15-month prison stint for contempt of court imposed on him by the Concourt.
In January, Love was quoted as saying that the country’s Constitution disqualified any person with a criminal record from serving in the National Assembly while responding to questions about Zuma’s eligibility to run for Parliament.
“We are obliged as the commission to abide by the laws of this country and our Constitution itself prescribes who is possible to be eligible as a candidate on the lists of any political party,” she said.
On Monday, while delivering the judgment, Justice Leona Theron said: “Section 30 sub 3 of the Electoral Act requires the commission to decide the objection while section 27 of the Electoral Act deals with the party’s list of candidates. Section 27(2)(B) requires that the lists must be accompanied by a prescribed declaration by a representative of the party and I quote ‘that each candidate on the list is qualified to stand for the election in terms of the Constitution’.”
The IEC in a statement issued by its spokesperson, Kate Bapela, said the commission noted the judgment by the Concourt, and commended it for clarifying the role of the IEC in qualifying and disqualifying nominated candidates to the National Assembly.
“The Electoral Commission had approached the Constitutional Court to seek clarity on whether it had powers to enforce section 47(1) of the Constitution. The section is about persons who are eligible to be members of the National Assembly.
“Now that the matter has been settled by the highest court and given that the constitutional uncertainties have been clarified, the commission can continue with final preparations for free and fair 2024 national and provincial elections (NPE) single-mindedly, without apprehension that the elections are susceptible to challenge,” Bapela said.
On Tuesday, in a statement, Karam Singh, executive director of Corruption Watch (CW), said the judgment handed down by the Concourt on Monday represented a win for civil society and a win for the elections.
“It is critical that our elections laws are subject to a reasonable interpretation. The initial ruling of the Electoral Court was incorrect, and it was therefore essential that this be corrected by our apex court … It remains disappointing and concerning that charges emanating from the arms deal have not been concluded and we await the start of that trial in 2025,” Singh said.
Speaking to “The Star”, political analyst Professor Sipho Seepe said after some of the implicated judges failed to recuse themselves in the matter, they opened the debate of being both players and referees in the process.
“The Concourt simply endorsed its earlier finding and sentencing of the former president Jacob Zuma. In interpreting its own decision after some of its members refused to recuse themselves, it allowed a situation where some of its members became players and referees in their own cause.
“It is unfortunate that they did not follow many other judges who preferred to err on the side of caution. Integrity is not something that can be assumed. It is earned,” Seepe said.
Seepe added that there was nothing worth celebrating when courts differed so glaringly in their findings.
“It should be troubling to have different courts coming each unanimously to different conclusions while entertaining the same facts. There is something amiss here.
“Most importantly, we should disabuse ourselves of the notion that judges hold monopoly to wisdom and the concept of justice. As matters stand, the Afrobarometer of 2021 has pointed to the fact that an increasing number of South Africans (53% of respondents) have lost confidence in our judiciary.
“No amount of legal gymnastics can justify the diabolical measure of detention without trial … We don’t need the Constitutional Court to tell us what detention without trial looks like. South Africans can smell injustice from a distance. They lived through it,” he added.
The Star