IEC demands reasons for the Electoral Court’s decision in f

Picture courtesy: (@Prof Moya via X) Former President Jacob Zuma addressing members of MK Party.

Phetolo Sematha

(The Post News)– The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) has taken a decisive step in the wake of recent developments surrounding former president Jacob Zuma and demanded clarity on the reasons behind the Electoral Court’s decision to clear the former president. The Electoral Court ruled in favor of Zuma’s parliamentary candidacy, allowing him to contest the upcoming May 29 polls for the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party.

Zuma, who had faced objections due to his criminal record, is now set to contest the upcoming elections as a candidate for the MK party. His previous conviction and 15-month prison sentence for contempt of court were cited as grounds for disqualification. However, the Electoral Court’s recent ruling overturned this decision, paving the way for Zuma’s participation in the National Assembly elections.

The two orders from the Electoral Court address critical aspects of Zuma’s candidacy: The first order pertains to the candidacy of the erstwhile President, Mr. Jacob Zuma. Why did the court allow him to run for parliament despite his previous conviction? Interpretation of “Consulate”: The second order relates to the interpretation of the word “consulate.” Specifically, it considers whether honorary consulates should be included, as provided in Section 33(3) of the Electoral Act.

In a statement released shortly after the court’s decision, IEC spokesperson Kate Bapela confirmed that the commission seeks clarity. “We have taken note of the contents of both orders,” Bapela stated. “Furthermore, we have noted that the orders were issued without reasoned judgment. To understand the basis of the conclusions reached in both matters, it is important that reasons are provided.”

Advocate Sy Mamabolo, Chief Electoral Officer of the IEC, shared that “the IEC took this step because it was of the view that there was a’substantial and overriding’ public interest in securing a clear understanding of the interpretation of Section 47(1)(e) of the Constitution, particularly its interplay with the commission’s powers to deal with objections. The appeal is about securing clarity so that all role players can understand what that constitutional provision is, how it ought to be interpreted, and for the future, everybody knows with certainty and legal clarity as to what that provision provides and what it does not provide for.”

The IEC is currently exploring its legal options. “Naturally, the Commission is taking legal advice on both matters, and we will chart a way forward based on such advice and reasoned judgments that we may receive, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future,” Bapela emphasized. The IEC’s demand for transparency and legal precision underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in South Africa’s electoral system.

The MK party welcomed the court’s decision, considering it a “pivotal victory.” Party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela urged that any other appeal by the IEC would be seen as a desperate attempt against Zuma and not in the interests of justice. “This verdict sends a strong message to the Ramaphosa ANC and its allies that any attempt to subvert the law for political advantage will not be tolerated by the MK Party, its members, supporters, and all the people of South Africa,” Ndhlela said.

In a passionate address to MK Party supporters, Jacob Zuma vehemently defended his candidacy. He stated that “it was argued that I cannot be on the ballot, but let me be clear: I have never committed a crime. Others have stolen money and hidden it under their mattresses at home, yet the IEC remains silent about those individuals. They say nothing. Instead, they target a person who has never stolen even a needle, and that person is Jacob Zuma.” Zuma’s emotional plea resonated with his supporters, who view him as a victim of selective scrutiny.

As the election date approaches, the spotlight remains on Jacob Zuma’s candidacy. The IEC’s demand for reasons behind the court’s ruling underscores the importance of accountability and due process in South Africa’s democratic system.