Jacob Zuma addresses members of the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party outside the High Court in Johannesburg on April 11, 2024 (Photo by EMMANUEL CROSET/AFP)
The Constitutional Court has asked the South African Electoral Commission (IEC) and the Umkhonto Wisizwe (MK) Party to make submissions on the significance of Commissioner Janet Love's comments regarding Jacob Zuma's parliamentary qualifications.
In a directive issued on Monday, the court gave both parties to file documents in the matter by 5pm on Tuesday.
Essentially, Mr Love's statement in January that Mr Zuma's criminal record “could preclude” him from standing as a parliamentary candidate in the May election was followed by a subsequent commission disqualifying Mr Zuma. They are asking the litigants whether they have undermined the council's decision.
“Having not refrained from expressing an opinion on Mr Zuma’s eligibility, should she have refrained from participating in the Electoral Commission’s determination of his eligibility?” the court said. .
then whether she should have declined, how her failure to decline affected the committee's decision, and if it undermined the legal validity of the committee's decision; The court asked whether it could make a finding on that decision.
“If Commissioner Love’s participation invalidates the Electoral Commission’s decision on Mr Zuma’s eligibility, can this court supersede the Electoral Commission’s decision?”
The court last Friday heard the IEC's urgent appeal against last month's ruling by the Electoral Tribunal, which overturned the decision to disqualify Mr Zuma.
The Election Commission has filed a challenge to his candidacy under Article 47(1)(e) of the Constitution on the grounds that he is barred from becoming a member of parliament due to a 15-month prison sentence for contempt of court. I supported it.
The law prohibits anyone who has been sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months or more without opting for a fine from serving as a member of parliament for five years.
Mr Zuma and his MK party had argued in the election tribunal that Mr Love's answers to questions from journalists about his qualifications raised a reasonable apprehension of prejudice.
In its founding affidavit to the Constitutional Court, the IEC cited this as one of the grounds for seeking direct access to the Supreme Court.
“An institution as important as the Commission should not be required to conduct elections under a cloud of bias or favoring one side,” the commission said. Ta.
It also said that if the appeal was not finalized by the May 29 election day, “the election tribunal's erroneous finding would have prevented ineligible persons from participating in the election campaign. He also argued that there was a risk that the election results could be disputed. , violates the Constitution. ”
The question of Mr Zuma's eligibility to run will “impact the decisions millions of voters will be asked to make at the polling stations”.
Mr Zuma's lawyers argued that the ban did not apply to him because, among other things, he had been wrongfully imprisoned by the Constitutional Court.
Although this argument makes a strong case for the hybrid nature of insults, it overturns the established principle that civil contempt is punishable as a crime.
This took up much of Friday's argument, with IEC lawyers rebutting: “There is no argument that contempt of court is a crime like any other crime under South African law.
“It's already been held four times. There's no reason to leave it today,” said advocate Thembeka Ngukaitobi.
