The stage is set for a high-stakes legal battle as the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) and the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) are poised to clash at the Constitutional Court on Friday over the eligibility of former president Jacob Zuma to stand as a candidate in the May 29 elections.
The IEC’s application challenges the Electoral Court’s decision to overturn its decision to uphold objections to Zuma’s candidature for the National Assembly in the seventh administration.
The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of Section 47(1)(e) of the constitution, which disqualifies individuals from being members of the National Assembly if they have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine.
Zuma, who was convicted of contempt of court for failure to appear at the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, was initially sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, though his sentence was later remitted, resulting in his release after serving only about three months.
Interpretation of the remission of sentences
While the IEC argues that Zuma’s conviction and sentence render him ineligible for candidature, the MKP contends that the remission of Zuma’s sentence reduces his effective sentence to less than 12 months, thus making him eligible to stand for office.
Another point of contention is the argument surrounding the interpretation of the remission of Zuma’s sentence and the timing of his disqualification.
This comes after the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation (AKF) announced this week that it has also joined the IEC in its appeal, arguing that disqualification in elections takes immediate effect upon conviction and sentencing, regardless of subsequent remission or appeal possibilities.
“The AKF strongly disagrees with the interpretation given to Section 47[1][e] regarding the availability of an appeal,” the foundation said.
“It seems clear that the section is intended to disqualify those whose conduct merits … that they cannot be considered suitable public representatives.
“Zuma’s utterly unambiguous contempt for the Zondo commission and the Constitutional Court must place him in that category.”
Recusal of ConCourt judges
The MKP has also asked the Constitutional Court for the recusal of specific justices in the matter, citing a potential bias due to the party’s interpretation of the judgment that found Zuma in contempt of court.
“The respondents have submitted a counter-application, arguing that the following justices should be recused from the matter: Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J, Theron J, and Tshiqi J,” the court confirmed on Thursday.
“The respondents contend that, as the justices will be interpreting their own decision in the Zuma contempt judgment, there is a reasonable apprehension that they are biased.
“Therefore, this court will lack quorum to entertain this application. The applicant, however, contends that these justices do not need to recuse themselves as judges regularly interpret their own decisions and as this matter does not require an interpretation of the Zuma contempt judgment.”
