Key Takeaways
- The ANC is challenging an Electoral Court decision that barred its candidates from six municipalities in the 2026 local elections because the party did not click the IEC’s “submit as final” button before the deadline.
- The ANC argues that the button is not required by law; uploading candidate lists and paying deposits satisfies the statutory requirement to “submit in the prescribed manner.”
- The IEC maintains that the button is an integral, clearly communicated step of the online nomination system and that failure to use it constitutes non‑compliance, regardless of the ANC’s other actions.
- The Constitutional Court is tasked with interpreting the phrase “submit in the prescribed manner” and determining whether the ANC’s nominations were valid despite the missing click.
- The outcome will affect the participation of 181 ANC candidates in the Sundays River Valley, Walter Sisulu, Ngquza Hill, Port St Johns, uMshwathi, and Mangaung municipalities and may set a precedent for how technical procedural steps are treated under electoral law.
Background of the Dispute
The African National Congress (ANC) approached the Constitutional Court to overturn an Electoral Court ruling that excluded its candidates from six municipalities ahead of the 4 November 2026 local government elections. The exclusion stemmed from the ANC’s failure to press the “submit as final” button on the Electoral Commission of South Africa’s (IEC) Online Candidate Nomination System by the 17:00 deadline on 28 August 2026, even though the party had uploaded all required candidate information and paid the necessary deposits. Consequently, 181 ANC candidates were barred from contesting in the Sundays River Valley, Walter Sisulu, Ngquza Hill, Port St Johns, uMshwathi, and Mangaung municipalities. The ANC initially cited technical faults in the online system but withdrew that claim after the IEC demonstrated the allegations were unfounded.
Legal Core of the ANC’s Argument
Advocate Daniel Burger, SC, representing the ANC, told the Constitutional Court that the party is not seeking condonation, an extension of the deadline, or special treatment. Instead, it asks the apex court to declare that its nominations were validly submitted as a matter of law. Burger emphasized that the relevant legislation and IEC regulations do not expressly provide for a “submit as final” button; the law only requires that nominations be “submitted in the prescribed manner.” According to Burger, completing the online form, saving it on the system, and paying the deposit fulfil that requirement. He argued that interpreting the missing click as a fatal defect would impose an extra‑statutory condition not contemplated by the legislature, thereby disenfranchising voters who support the ANC’s candidates.
IEC’s Counter‑Argument
Advocate Terry Motau, SC, for the IEC, countered that the “submit as final” button is a deliberate, clearly communicated step within the online nomination system, reinforced by multiple training sessions and reminders that parties receive three times before the deadline. Motau asserted that the ANC availed itself of the system’s benefits—such as automated validation and deposit tracking—but then “disavowed” the very step that the system designates as the moment of submission. He contended that the button is not a superfluous add‑on but a functional component that triggers the IEC’s internal processes to lock in the nomination, generate the official receipt, and prevent subsequent alterations. By omitting it, the ANC failed to meet the procedural prescription, and the IEC’s exclusion was therefore lawful. Motau warned that accepting the ANC’s interpretation would open the door to arbitrary interpretations of what constitutes a valid submission, undermining the integrity of the electoral process.
Deliberations at the Constitutional Court
Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlambo framed the central question for the court: how should the phrase “submit in the prescribed manner” be interpreted in the context of the IEC’s online system? He asked Burger whether the ANC’s position—that completing and saving the form equates to submission—addresses the IEC’s contention that the missing “submit as final” button means the nomination was never finalized. Burger reiterated that saving the form satisfies the legal requirement, while Motau insisted that the button is the operative act that converts a draft into a binding nomination. The hearing, which began in the morning, continued into the afternoon, with both sides citing statutory provisions, IEC procedural guides, and precedents concerning electoral compliance. The justices appeared focused on whether the IEC’s online system, as a creature of regulation, can impose a substantive condition that is not explicitly mentioned in the underlying election law.
Implications for the 2026 Local Elections
If the Constitutional Court sides with the ANC, the 181 excluded candidates would be reinstated, allowing the party to contest in the six affected municipalities. This would likely alter the electoral calculus in those areas, potentially affecting the balance of power between the ANC, opposition parties, and independent candidates. Conversely, a ruling upholding the IEC’s exclusion would affirm the commission’s authority to enforce procedural steps embedded in its electronic nomination system, reinforcing the principle that compliance with all stipulated electronic actions is mandatory for ballot access. The decision could also influence how other political parties approach future online nomination processes, prompting stricter adherence to system prompts or, alternatively, spurring legislative clarification on what constitutes “submission in the prescribed manner.”
Broader Significance for Electoral Law
Beyond the immediate case, the court’s interpretation will speak to the tension between technological administration of elections and the statutory framework governing them. As electoral commissions increasingly rely on digital platforms, questions arise about which platform features are merely facilitative and which are substantive legal requirements. A judgment that leans toward a flexible, purpose‑based reading of “submission” could provide a safeguard against disenfranchisement caused by technical glitches or user error, while still preserving the integrity of the process. A stricter, literal reading would emphasize that parties must follow every prescribed digital step, placing the burden on them to master the system’s nuances. The Constitutional Court’s ruling will therefore help delineate the line between administrative convenience and legal obligation in South Africa’s evolving electoral landscape.
Conclusion
The Constitutional Court’s review of the ANC’s candidate list application hinges on a seemingly simple procedural detail—the failure to click a “submit as final” button—but it raises profound questions about legal interpretation, electoral fairness, and the role of technology in democracy. The ANC argues that its compliance with the substantive legal requirements (uploading candidate lists and paying deposits) suffices, while the IEC maintains that the button is an essential, non‑negotiable step of the prescribed online process. The court’s decision will determine the fate of 181 ANC candidates in six municipalities and set a precedent for how electoral bodies and political parties navigate the intersection of law and digital administration in future elections.