The Electoral Court has issued a detailed ruling on its decision to validate Jacob Zuma’s disqualification as a candidate for the MK Party by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC).
According to the court, Section 47(1)(e) of the constitution, which disqualifies individuals sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment without an option of a fine, does not apply to Zuma due to the nature of his sentence by the Constitutional Court.
Arguing its case earlier this month, the IEC cited constitutional provisions barring individuals with convictions over 12 months from holding public office, reiterating the principle that “law breakers should not be lawmakers”.
Despite Zuma’s parole after serving three months, the IEC maintained his disqualification, emphasising that executive decisions do not alter court-imposed sentences.
Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing the MK Party, challenged the IEC’s authority and alleged bias, arguing for the preservation of political rights, cautioning against easy candidate exclusion, and highlighting the importance of democratic principles and participation in politics.
Right to appeal conviction
In the judgment published on Friday, the judges emphasised that the constitution acknowledges the right of convicted individuals to appeal their conviction and sentence.
Therefore, until the appeal process concludes or the convicted individual decides not to appeal, the conviction and sentence do not take effect.
Judge Dumisani Zondi clarified that Zuma’s sentence, resulting from his refusal to comply with the Constitutional Court’s directive to appear before the state capture inquiry, falls outside the scope of Section 47(1)(e).
He criticised the commission for basing its decision on Zuma’s disqualification solely on the sentence imposed, which he feels was premature.
The commission erred
“The drafters of the constitution recognised the fact that a person convicted and sentenced has a right to appeal against their conviction and sentence, upon leave being granted by the trial court or, if refused, on petition to the superior court,” reads the judgment.
“If that fact were not important to them, they would not have inserted the proviso, which seeks to preserve the status quo pending the appeal processes.
“In other words, the conviction and sentence do not take effect until the appeal process has taken place; alternatively, a convicted and sentenced person has elected not to appeal the conviction and/or sentence.
“In my view, the sentence that was imposed on Mr Zuma cannot be said to be a sentence that the section contemplates.
“The commission erred, therefore, in upholding an objection to Mr Zuma’s candidature on the basis that the sentence that was imposed on him disqualified him from being eligible to be a member of the National Assembly.”
