In a landmark ruling, the Constitutional Court has delivered a decisive judgment on the challenges to the Electoral Amendment Act, significantly impacting how independent candidates will participate in the upcoming 2024 general elections. The ruling comes after extensive deliberations and a legal battle challenging various provisions of the Act.
The central aspect of the judgment revolves around the signature requirement for independent candidates, a critical element introduced by the Electoral Amendment Act. Initially, independent candidates and new political parties faced a significant hurdle, as they were required to obtain signatures from 15 percent of the residents in the region they sought to represent.
However, the Constitutional Court has now set aside this requirement, replacing it with a more accessible threshold of 1 000 signatures. Justice Jody Kollapen, delivering the majority judgment, emphasized the need to prevent barriers that could undermine the gains achieved by allowing independent candidates to contest elections.
The court highlighted the historic nature of its previous judgment, which paved the way for independent candidates, and expressed concern that imposing excessively high signature requirements could render these gains "hollow." The court acknowledged the argument that the signature requirement aimed to prevent frivolous election participation. However, Justice Kollapen raised a critical question: "Why a signature requirement now when one was never needed before?"
The majority concluded that the previous quota system, based on provinces as constituencies, could impose unjustifiable barriers, requiring some independent candidates and new parties to collect between 10 000 and 14 000 signatures. The court ordered a "reading in" of the new requirement of 1 000 signatures to address this.
In a notable move, Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, in a minority judgment, expressed his disagreement with the application brought by Mmusi Maimane and One South Africa Movement NPC. Chief Justice Zondo contended that the application did not impact anyone's rights, signalling a divergence in perspectives within the Constitutional Court.
Another facet of the ruling pertained to the Independent Candidate Association of South Africa's challenge to the 200/200 split in seats allocated in the National Assembly. The court dismissed this challenge, affirming the constitutional validity of the split. Justice Nonkosi Mhlantla, writing for the court, emphasized that the split was grounded in proportional representation and minimized the risk of overhang.
The judgment addresses concerns raised by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) and independent candidate Zachie Achmat regarding the timing of the ruling and its potential impact on election preparations. As South Africa gears up for the 2024 elections, this Constitutional Court decision reshapes the landscape for independent candidates, striking a balance between democratic participation and reasonable requirements.
