The Electoral Court has dismissed the DA’s legal challenge against ActionSA, the EFF, GOOD Party and the MK Party over their submission of single-name proportional representation (PR) candidate lists for the November 4 municipal elections.
The judgment was delivered on Friday, October 30.
The DA had approached the court seeking to have the parties’ lists declared unlawful, arguing that submitting only one candidate was a deliberate attempt to conceal the identities of other candidates who could later be added to the lists after the elections.
In its judgment, the court found that the existing electoral legislation allows political parties to supplement their PR candidate lists after the election, once the number of seats they have won has been determined.
The court held that the Electoral Act provides for this process under item 17, which allows parties to submit additional candidates when their initial lists do not contain enough names to fill the seats allocated to them.
It rejected the DA’s argument that this provision should only apply where a party had genuinely and unintentionally underestimated the number of candidates it would need.
The DA had argued that the parties’ approach undermined transparency and the vetting of candidates before voters went to the polls.
It also accused them of acting in bad faith by submitting lists containing only one name, despite contesting numerous municipalities and potentially winning several PR seats.
ActionSA submitted one-name PR lists in 101 of the 102 municipalities it is contesting. The party told the court that its approach was to place its mayoral candidate at the top of the list and rank additional candidates after the election according to their performance in ward contests.
The EFF submitted one-name lists across all 257 municipalities, while the MK Party did the same in the 229 municipalities it is contesting.
GOOD Party also submitted single-name lists in the 25 municipalities where it is contesting.
The Electoral Commission certified the parties’ candidate lists on September 16.
The DA sought an order declaring the lists unlawful and reviewing the Electoral Commission’s decision to certify and publish them.
However, the court dismissed the DA’s declaratory applications and its review application, finding that the relief sought could not be granted on the basis advanced by the party.
The court also dealt with the interaction between item 17 and item 20 of the electoral legislation, which provides for a period during which changes to candidate lists are restricted. It found that the restrictions under item 20 should not prevent the supplementation of lists in circumstances permitted by item 17.
The court did not, however, make a final determination on the broader constitutional challenge brought by the DA against the provisions allowing parties to supplement their lists after elections.
That part of the matter was postponed sine die, with the court finding that the minister responsible for the legislation had not been joined and that the Speaker of the National Assembly and the chairperson of the National Council of Provinces should also be joined.
The court further noted the far-reaching consequences of the constitutional challenge and the fact that the elections were approaching.
The judgment was handed down by Judge Mangcu-Lockwood, with Judge Modiba and Professor Phooko concurring.
There was no order as to costs.