Key Takeaways
- The Constitutional Court will decide whether ANC candidates excluded from six municipalities can stand in the November 4 local‑government elections after the party failed to click “submit as final” on the IEC’s online nomination system.
- The ANC argues that the click is not a statutory requirement and that its lists were already received before the deadline; it seeks a declaration of valid submission, not an extension or condonation.
- The IEC maintains that, although the click is not expressly written in the Electoral Act, the party’s use of the online system implies acceptance of all its procedural steps, and a ruling in the ANC’s favour would require equal treatment for dozens of other parties and over 2,000 candidates.
- The Electoral Court upheld the IEC’s decision, but the Constitutional Court’s judgment, expected at 10 am on Thursday, could force the IEC to reprint a large share of ballot papers and adjust contingency plans.
- The DA, joined as an amicus curiae, supports the IEC, warning that a broad ruling would complicate ballot preparation and threaten the integrity of a free and fair election.
- Regardless of the outcome, the case highlights ambiguities in electronic nomination procedures and may prompt legislative clarification to avoid similar disputes in future elections.
Background of the dispute
The controversy centres on 181 African National Congress (ANC) candidates who were barred from appearing on ballot papers in six municipalities—Sundays River Valley, Walter Sisulu, Ngquza Hill, Port St Johns (all in the Eastern Cape), uMshwathi (KwaZulu‑Natal) and the Mangaung metro (Free State). The ANC had uploaded its party and ward candidate lists to the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC) online nomination system and paid the required deposits before the 5 p.m. deadline on 28 August 2024. However, the party omitted the final step of clicking the “submit as final” button that confirms the lists as definitive. On 1 September the IEC informed the ANC that, because the button had not been pressed, the nominations would not be accepted, leading to the exclusion of the candidates.
IEC’s position and actions
The IEC contends that, while the Electoral Act and its regulations do not explicitly state that a click on the “submit as final” button is mandatory, the functionality of the online system is integral to the nomination process. By using the system to load lists, pay deposits and interact with other features, the ANC implicitly accepted the system’s full workflow, including the final confirmation step. IEC deputy chief executive Masego Sheburi noted that the commission had prepared contingency plans, which would involve reprinting a substantial proportion of ballot papers if the court ruled in the ANC’s favour, to ensure that any newly admitted candidates could be accommodated.
ANC’s legal arguments
Represented by Advocate Daniel Berger SC, the ANC argued that clicking the button is merely a procedural formality not required by law. Berger emphasized that the party’s lists were already in the IEC’s possession before the deadline, likening the situation to a lecturer refusing to mark an essay simply because it was handed in as a draft. The ANC maintained that it was not seeking condonation or an extension of the deadline; rather, it requested a declaratory order that its nominations had been validly submitted despite the omitted click. The party also initially blamed technical faults on the IEC’s online system but withdrew that claim after the IEC demonstrated no evidence of malfunction.
IEC’s counterarguments
Advocate Terry Motau SC, counsel for the IEC, conceded that the requirement to click the button is not expressly written in the Electoral Act or its regulations. Nevertheless, Motau argued that the ANC could not challenge the requirement after having availed itself of other aspects of the online system that are likewise not detailed in the legislation. He stressed that the ANC had not asked the courts to excuse its late compliance, and any relief should be confined to the dispute between the IEC and the ANC, avoiding broader implications for other parties. Motau warned that extending the relief to all similarly situated parties would destabilize ballot preparation and jeopardize the fairness of the election.
Electoral Court decision
The Electoral Court considered the matter and upheld the IEC’s position, dismissing the ANC’s appeal. The court found that, despite the absence of an explicit statutory provision, the IEC’s interpretation of the online nomination process—including the final confirmation step—was reasonable and within its mandate. The judgment reinforced the IEC’s authority to enforce procedural completeness of electronic submissions, even when those procedures are not spelled out in the Act.
DA’s involvement and stance
The Democratic Alliance (DA) joined the case as an amicus curiae in the Electoral Court, backing the IEC’s stance. Advocate Michael Bishop, representing the DA, told the court that dozens of other parties and more than 2,000 candidates had likewise failed to click the “submit as final” button. Bishop argued that a ruling in favour of the ANC would have to be applied uniformly to all those cases, which would necessitate widespread reprinting of ballots, cause logistical chaos, and undermine the credibility of a free and fair election. The DA’s intervention underscored the concern that preferential treatment for one party could set a problematic precedent.
Potential outcomes and broader impact
If the Constitutional Court sides with the ANC, the IEC would likely need to implement its contingency plans, which include reprinting a significant number of ballot papers to accommodate the newly admitted candidates. This could delay the distribution of materials and increase costs, though the commission has stated it is prepared to manage the logistical burden. Conversely, if the court affirms the IEC’s decision, the 181 ANC candidates will remain excluded, and the election will proceed with the current ballot configurations. Either outcome will likely prompt a review of the Electoral Act’s provisions concerning electronic nominations, as the case has exposed a gap between legislative text and the practical requirements of the IEC’s online platform. Legislators may seek to amend the law to clarify whether a final confirmation click is mandatory, thereby reducing uncertainty for future elections.
Conclusion
The impending Constitutional Court ruling resolves a pivotal question about the legal sufficiency of electronic nomination procedures in South Africa’s municipal elections. While the ANC argues that the omitted click is a meaningless formality, the IEC and supporting parties contend that the online system’s full workflow must be respected to maintain electoral integrity. The decision will not only affect the immediate fate of 181 candidates in six municipalities but also shape how political parties interact with the IEC’s digital nomination system moving forward, potentially prompting legislative clarification to prevent similar disputes in future polls.