ActionSA on Tuesday has accused the Democratic Alliance (DA) of using an Electoral Court battle over municipal candidate lists to restrict the representation of rival parties ahead of the November 4 local government elections.
In a sharply worded statement authored by the ActionSA national chairperson Michael Beaumont, he said that his party would use the court proceedings to challenge what it described as the DA’s attempt to prevent parties from obtaining additional proportional-representation (PR) seats after votes are counted.
The DA has taken ActionSA, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and GOOD to the Electoral Court over their submission of single-name PR lists in municipalities.
The DA argued that the practice deprives voters of the opportunity to know in advance which candidates could ultimately occupy PR seats, stating that the legal provision allowing parties to supplement lists was not intended to be used as a deliberate electoral strategy.
READ MORE: DA asks court to curb rivals’ PR strategy ahead of local elections
But ActionSA said the DA’s case amounts to an attempt to change the rules after parties have already submitted and certified their lists.
Beaumont said the party would demonstrate in court what he called the “cynical nature” of the DA’s application.
“The truth is that they have never taken any step to amend this legislation in the 28 years of its existence while they have been represented in the National Assembly,” said Beaumont.
‘The law already allows it’
At the heart of the dispute is Item 17 of Schedule 1 of the Municipal Structures Act, which provides for a party to supplement its PR list, if its submitted list contains fewer candidates than the number of seats it is entitled to after the election.
ActionSA argued that the provision is clear and has been part of the electoral framework for years.
The party also points to the DA’s own conduct in previous elections and said the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) has confirmed that the DA submitted single-name PR lists in 12 municipalities during the 2026 elections, and that gave ActionSA ammunition to accuse the DA of challenging a system it has itself used.
The DA, however, maintained that its case is not simply about whether supplementation is legally possible.
The blue party has argued that parties cannot deliberately submit one-name lists as a strategy to avoid identifying their potential councillors before voters cast their ballots.
IEC deals a blow to DA’s case
The IEC has emerged as a crucial player in the legal battle after warning that the relief sought by the DA could disrupt the elections.
IEC chief electoral officer Sy Mamabolo told the court that the commission was not taking sides between the parties but strongly disputed the suggestion that the single-name lists were unlawfully certified.
“The Commission is firmly of the view that the DA’s case is without merit in law,” Mamabolo said.
He described some of the DA’s arguments as “factually opportunistic and legally specious” and warned that the timing of the application could put the integrity of the elections at risk.
READ: DA rubs salt in ANC’s wounds after Electoral Court defeat
The IEC said the DA launched its application on September 21, after nominations had closed and candidate lists had been certified.
It also told the court that the practice of submitting single name lists and subsequently supplementing them was not new.
According to the IEC’s court papers, the DA itself submitted single name lists in 12 municipalities.
The commission further said it would apply the law equally to all political parties and that it was not empowered to investigate the political motives behind a party’s decision to submit a particular list.
ActionSA says DA could put elections at risk
ActionSA has seized on the IEC’s warning, arguing that the DA’s court action comes too close to voting day.
The party wants the DA’s application dismissed and has asked for a punitive costs order.
Beaumont said the DA’s approach amounted to an attempt to achieve through litigation what it had not achieved through legislative reform.
“It appears the DA has run out of ideas for how it will ever become a majority party and is now moving to disenfranchise the votes they will never receive,” said Beaumont.
The DA has described the practice by ActionSA, the EFF, MK Party and GOOD as an attempt to conceal candidates from voters and says elections should not allow parties to identify potential councillors only after the ballot has been cast.
Coalition politics add fuel to the fire
The dispute has also opened another front in the increasingly competitive battle over South Africa’s coalition politics.
ActionSA said the DA could find itself seeking coalition support from parties whose voters it is simultaneously challenging in court.
Beaumont said the contradiction was impossible to ignore.
“The greatest irony is that the DA will presume itself entitled to the support of parties like ActionSA in coalitions around the country after the elections,” he said.
He added that ActionSA’s voters, rather than the DA, would determine the party’s coalition choices after the elections.
READ: Coalition governments are not a passing phase in South Africa
The case therefore goes beyond the technical question of candidate lists. It has become a political contest over who gets represented in municipal councils – and how coalition power will be distributed after November 4.
With the election only weeks away, the Electoral Court must now weigh the DA’s argument that voters have a right to know the full pool of potential PR councillors against the respondents’ reliance on the existing statutory framework allowing supplementation, while for ActionSA, the battle is about protecting proportional representation.
On the other hand, regarding the DA’s matter, it is about what the party describes as the voters’ right to know who they are voting to put into office.
And for the IEC, the immediate concern is that any major change to the rules at this late stage could destabilise an election process already under way.
DA’s argument
In the the DA’s heads of argument, the party advances one central proposition, which says that political parties should not be allowed to secure votes before an election and then decide who will occupy the PR seats those votes earn after the results are known.
The DA relies on sections 157(2) and 19 of the Constitution.
The DA argues that the Constitution requires municipal PR councillors to be elected from party lists prepared in order of preference.
It contends that a list containing only one name, when the party intends to fill additional seats after the election, does not meet this constitutional requirement.
The DA maintains that candidate lists must identify and rank the people a party puts forward before voting takes place.
The DA argues that the four parties’ one-name lists undermine voters’ right to make informed choices, they also violate the constitutional requirement for ranked party lists and create an unfair electoral advantage.
The party asks the Electoral Court either to reject the practice under the existing legislation or, if the legislation permits it, to declare the relevant provisions unconstitutional, stating that its preferred practical outcomes are exclusion from the PR election or postponement of additional appointments until after the first council meeting.
- ActionSA alleges the DA is using an Electoral Court case to restrict rival parties' representation by challenging single-name proportional representation (PR) lists ahead of the November 4 local elections.
- The DA has taken ActionSA, EFF, uMkhonto weSizwe Party, and GOOD to court over their submission of one-name PR lists, arguing this practice deprives voters of knowing which candidates may occupy PR seats.
- The IEC opposes the DA's court application, stating single-name lists with subsequent supplementation are lawful and that the DA itself submitted such lists in 12 municipalities during the 2026 elections.
- ActionSA argues the DA's court case is an attempt to change election rules post-nomination and that the DA should have pursued legislative reform during the 28 years of the law's existence.
- The Electoral Court dispute highlights tensions in coalition politics, with ActionSA noting the irony that the DA might seek coalition support from parties it is currently challenging in court.
