In a recent development, the Electoral Court of South Africa has overturned a decision by the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) to bar former President Jacob Zuma from standing as a candidate for parliament on the Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) party’s parliamentary list.
The court released its full judgment on Friday, providing clarity on the reasons behind its decision.
The IEC has now turned to the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) to seek clarity on the interpretation of Section 47(1)(e) of the South African Constitution. This section deals with the circumstances under which a convicted individual is barred from holding public office.
The MK party, in its appeal to the Electoral Court, argued that the IEC lacked the power to enforce Section 47 and that Zuma’s three-month imprisonment, followed by a sentence remission, nullified the relevance of his initial 15-month conviction.
The Electoral Court ruled in favour of the MK party’s appeal application “in the interests of justice” and due to the “prospects of success.”
The court granted leave to appeal based on the public interest nature of the matter and the interplay between Section 30 of the Electoral Act and Section 47(1)(e) of the Constitution, read with Section 19(3) of the Constitution.
The court’s chairperson, Dumisani Zondi, explained that the judges were unanimous in their decision that Zuma qualified to go to the National Assembly because there was no appeal available to him and his prison term did not meet the criteria of a “sentence” as defined by the relevant constitutional provisions.
Section 47(1)(e) and Section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution were interpreted together, with equal weight given to each provision. Section 19(3)(b) encourages citizens to participate in the electoral process by standing for public office and holding office if elected.
On the other hand, Section 47(1) aims to maintain the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring that those campaigning for public office and elected to hold office are not serious violators of the law and are fit and proper persons to hold public office.
The court highlighted that the drafters of the Constitution recognized the right of a convicted and sentenced person to appeal against their conviction and sentence.
The proviso in Section 47(1)(e) preserves the status quo pending the appeal processes. Therefore, the conviction and sentence do not take effect until the appeal process has taken place or the convicted person has decided not to appeal.
In the case of Jacob Zuma, the court concluded that the sentence imposed on him for contempt of court cannot be considered a sentence contemplated by Section 47(1)(e) of the Constitution.
Jacob Zuma was sentenced to 15 months in prison for contempt of court after he defied a Constitutional Court ruling that compelled him to appear before the State Capture Commission.
However, he was granted a sentence remission, reducing his prison term to three months. This reduction in the sentence further influenced the Electoral Court’s decision to allow him to stand as a candidate for parliament.
It is important to note that the Electoral Court’s ruling is specific to the circumstances of this case and does not set a precedent for future cases. The interpretation of Section 47(1)(e) of the Constitution and its application to convicted individuals seeking public office will likely be clarified by the Constitutional Court in response to the IEC’s request for clarity.
