- The ANCYL and SASCO contested the 24 June 2026 student leadership election, saying there were irregularities in the voting process.
- Unisa’s election tribunal dismissed their complaint without giving them a chance to respond to evidence from the electoral commission.
- The High Court overturned the tribunal’s ruling and ordered a new hearing, but allowed the elected leaders to stay in office for now.
The African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) and the South African Students Congress (SASCO) have won a new hearing for their challenge to the election of Unisa’s National Student Representative Council (NSRC).
The dispute began at the National Congress held at the Kopanong Conference Venue in Ekurhuleni on 24 June 2026, where student representatives elected members of the NSRC executive committee. A report from the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa, which ran the ballot, said 90 delegates signed the attendance register.
The Economic Freedom Fighters’ Youth Command (EFFYC) candidates won the contested positions of president and deputy president. Each secured 46 votes, while the SASCO candidates each received 44.
The positions of secretary-general and treasurer-general were uncontested. There were no nominations for the other five executive positions. On 25 June 2026, the ANCYL and SASCO, along with the MK Students’ Movement (MKSM), lodged an electoral dispute.
They questioned whether Unisa’s Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) was truly independent and claimed that delegates’ credentials were not properly verified. They also raised concerns about ballot secrecy, saying delegates were allowed to keep their phones and take photos of their marked ballot papers.
Other complaints included objections that were not properly recorded or resolved, the allegedly improper removal of observers, and a nomination for Gift Nkuna that they said was ignored. The organisations also questioned why only four out of nine executive positions were filled.
Tribunal dismissed complaint without hearing both sides
The Independent Election Tribunal (IET) heard from the organisations on 9 July 2026, then heard separately from the IEC. During its presentation, the commission addressed the allegations and referred to a six-page credential report and other evidence.
The applicants wrote to the tribunal, asking for a chance to respond to the commission’s submissions and evidence. However, they were never given copies of the presentation or supporting documents and were not invited to respond before the tribunal dismissed their complaint on 10 July 2026.
The tribunal confirmed the election results and said the elected office bearers should stay in their positions. The organisations went to the High Court in Johannesburg, asking for the tribunal’s decision to be reviewed and set aside.
Judge S Wentzel-Thompson found that the tribunal did not give the applicants a fair chance to respond to the case made by the IEC. The judge said a party must have a chance to deal with the case against them and know what material the decision-maker plans to rely on.
Although the tribunal was allowed to hear the parties separately, it could not rely on one party’s evidence without letting the other side respond. The judge found that this violated the right to fair administrative action under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).
Fresh hearing ordered, but election remains in place
The judge set aside the tribunal’s ruling and ordered Unisa to set up a new tribunal within 10 days to reconsider the original electoral dispute. The new panel must be made up of people who did not take part in the original hearing, did not attend the National Congress and have no links to the electoral commission or student organisations involved.
The IEC must give the applicants and other affected organisations its original presentation, credentialing report and all supporting evidence from the first hearing. The ANCYL and SASCO will then have a chance to submit written arguments and any extra evidence. The IEC and other groups can also respond.
The tribunal must deliver a written, reasoned decision within 15 court days after the last submissions, unless the parties agree to an extension. However, Judge Wentzel-Thompson refused to set aside the election itself or order a new National Congress within 90 days.
The judge said the electoral dispute must first be decided by the special tribunal set up under Unisa’s Electoral Policy. The High Court would not step in and decide the allegations itself. The judge also refused to appoint an interim student representative council, saying that this responsibility lies with Unisa’s University Council.
The four elected office bearers will stay in their positions while the new ruling is awaited. This does not mean the court found the election was valid or that the alleged irregularities did not happen. Each party was told to pay its own legal costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
