Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s former president, sought to return to the National Assembly, a bid that was ultimately thwarted by a Constitutional Court ruling.
This ruling hinged on the interpretation of specific legal provisions within the South African Constitution, particularly Section 47(1)(e).
According to this section, any person who has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine is disqualified from serving as a Member of Parliament (MP).
This provision was central to the court’s decision to bar Zuma from contesting the election. The sequence of events began with the Electoral Court’s initial judgment, which found that Zuma’s criminal conviction and subsequent sentencing met the criteria outlined in Section 47(1)(e).
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: ConCourt Rules That Jacob Zuma Must Go Back To Jail To Finish His Sentence
Zuma had been sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for contempt of court after defying a Constitutional Court order to appear before the Zondo Commission, which was investigating allegations of corruption during his tenure as president.
This conviction and the absence of an option for a fine clearly invoked the disqualifying condition stated in the Constitution.
Following the Electoral Court’s decision, the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) filed an urgent appeal to the Constitutional Court. The IEC argued that Zuma’s disqualification should be reconsidered, citing procedural and substantive grounds.
However, the Constitutional Court upheld the Electoral Court’s judgment, reinforcing the principle that the rule of law must be upheld consistently, irrespective of the individual involved.
In her judgment, Justice Leona Theron highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legislative process and ensuring that those who serve as MPs adhere to the highest ethical standards.
She stated, “The Constitution’s disqualification criteria are designed to protect the sanctity of the parliamentary institution and prevent individuals with serious criminal convictions from occupying legislative positions.”
This judgment not only reaffirmed the legal provisions but also underscored the broader implications for governance and the rule of law in South Africa.
