ActionSA has defended its use of single-candidate proportional representation (PR) lists ahead of the November 4 local government elections, arguing that the Municipal Electoral Act allows parties to supplement their lists after an election. The party's national chairperson, Michael Beaumont, said they would defend their position in court, citing the legislation that does not require parties to submit a full PR list before voters go to the polls. This has been challenged by the Democratic Alliance (DA), which argues that the practice could leave voters unaware of who may ultimately occupy seats secured by their parties.
The DA has taken issue with ActionSA, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), MK Party, and GOOD over their use of single-candidate PR lists. The DA's Federal Council chairperson, Ashor Sarupen, argued that the provision was intended to deal with circumstances where a party wins more seats than the number of candidates it submitted, rather than allowing parties to withhold the names of potential councillors from voters. The DA has asked the Electoral Court to determine whether the practice of deliberately submitting single-candidate PR lists is lawful and constitutionally permissible.
According to the Municipal Electoral Act, if a party list contains fewer candidates than the party is entitled to, the Electoral Commission must notify the party of the exact shortfall and request the party to deliver a list supplemented by the name or names of one or more eligible candidates within two days of the notice. ActionSA argues that this provision does not distinguish between parties that unexpectedly win additional seats and those that deliberately submit shorter lists before an election.
ActionSA has pointed out that the DA itself has submitted one-candidate PR lists in some municipalities. The party identified 12 KwaZulu-Natal municipalities where the DA submitted one-seat PR lists, including Ntabankulu, Umzumbe, and Mkhambathini. ActionSA also claimed to have correspondence from the DA's KwaZulu-Natal leadership to the National Freedom Party in 2016 offering NFP seats through the same legal provision.
Beaumont questioned the timing of the DA's legal challenge, saying it had been brought after the candidate nomination process had closed. He argued that the essence of the DA's court case is to read things into the provisions of the Municipal Electoral Act that the legislators simply did not include. This has sparked a debate about the interpretation of the legislation and its implications for the upcoming local government elections.
Election expert Terry Tselane, executive chairman of the Institute of Election Management Services in Africa, weighed in on the issue, saying the legislation allows a party to supplement its list where it has fewer candidates than the number of seats it is entitled to after an election. He confirmed that the process provides for the Electoral Commission to notify the party of the shortfall and require additional eligible candidates to be submitted.
The DA's challenge centres on whether parties can use the supplementation provisions as a deliberate strategy by submitting only one PR candidate and selecting additional candidates after the election. The outcome of the Electoral Court's determination will have significant implications for the upcoming local government elections and the way parties approach candidate selection and PR lists. The court's decision will provide clarity on the interpretation of the Municipal Electoral Act and its application in this context.
Key points
- The Democratic Alliance has challenged ActionSA's use of single-candidate PR lists, arguing that it could leave voters unaware of who may ultimately occupy seats secured by their parties.
- ActionSA has defended its position, citing the Municipal Electoral Act, which allows parties to supplement their lists after an election.
- The Electoral Court's determination will have significant implications for the upcoming local government elections and the way parties approach candidate selection and PR lists.
