In a high-stakes court duel at the Johannesburg High Court on Monday, the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party locked horns with the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) over the exclusion of former president Jacob Zuma from participating in the upcoming elections.
The contentious legal battle revolves around issues of bias, conviction, and sentence, shaking the foundations of democratic processes in South Africa.
The crux of the matter lies in Section 47 of the constitution, which bars individuals convicted for more than 12 months without the option of a fine from holding public office.
Zuma’s disqualification stems from his 2021 conviction for contempt of court, which resulted in a 15-month prison sentence.
Denial of political rights
Leading the charge for the MK Party, advocate Dali Mpofu passionately argued against what he perceives as the denial of political rights.
He emphasised the significance of safeguarding the right to vote and participate in politics, cautioning against arbitrary disenfranchisement.
Mpofu vehemently contended that the IEC overstepped its bounds by wielding authority beyond its constitutional mandate, particularly regarding the interpretation and implementation of Section 47.
“When the constitution disenfranchises somebody, it does not do that in silence, My Lord,” Mpofu told the court.
“The National Assembly is entrusted to manage its own affairs, and that includes determining who is a member and who is not a member.
“Ideally, if the IEC allows my person to be on the list now and then, in April, that person is sentenced to 10 years, what must happen? The IEC has nothing to do with it.”
The judges pressed Mpofu for clarity, questioning the extent of the IEC’s authority and its role in candidate screening.
Limited powers
Mpofu vehemently argued that the IEC’s powers are limited to managing elections and emphasised the importance of separation of powers, asserting that the National Assembly holds the prerogative to determine membership eligibility.
“The National Assembly must deal with it. It is the National Assembly that must tell that person that they are not eligible to be a member. The IEC does not enter anywhere in this.”
The legal battle also delved into allegations of bias within the IEC.
The MK Party raised concerns over commissioner Janet Love’s purported prejudgment of Zuma’s eligibility, citing public statements made prior to the official decision.
The party’s legal representatives underscored the need for impartiality and accused the commission of precluding fair deliberation.
As the proceedings unfolded, tensions flared, with Justice Isaac Madondo cautioning Mpofu regarding courtroom demeanour.
However, the fervour remained unabated as the legal representatives sparred over the intricacies of conviction and sentence, with Mpofu steadfastly maintaining that Zuma’s rights had been infringed.
Implications for democratic principles
In a final plea to the Electoral Court sitting at the high court, Mpofu urged against the ease with which the IEC could exclude candidates, highlighting the broader implications for democratic principles.
“In South Africa or any other country, we should be extremely cautious before we deny the political rights of anybody,” he said.
“The mere reason that we have a constitution and the reason why we are here today is because people were denied the right to vote, the right to participate in politics, and many other rights.”
- This is a developing story. Follow live updates on X: @Nompilo_nz
https://x.com/nompilo_nz/status/1777255240909136102?s=46&t=yiOwY2Crhc-KwRmOPpcBMQ
