- Dr Franck Naidoo’s nomination to stand as an independent candidate for Ward 26 in eThekwini was rejected because only 43 out of his 58 supporters could be verified as registered voters in the ward.
- Naidoo argued that the Electoral Commission should allow him to correct identity numbers. He said it had been difficult to obtain personal information from voters and referred to the Protection of Personal Information Act.
- The Electoral Court dismissed his review application, saying the legal nomination requirements had to be met before the deadline. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.
Dr Franck Naidoo has been barred from contesting Ward 26 in the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality as an independent candidate in the upcoming local government elections because the Electoral Court found that he did not meet the requirement of at least 50 verified voter supporters.
In a judgment written by Professor MR Phooko, with Judge LR Adams and Acting Judge S Yacoob agreeing, the court said the Electoral Commission of South Africa was entitled to reject Naidoo’s nomination. Incorrect identity numbers and supporters who were registered outside the ward meant he did not reach the required threshold. The judgment was delivered electronically on 21 October 2026, after a hearing on 30 September.
Naidoo submitted 58 signatures before the deadline
The nomination process for the local government elections, set for 4 November 2026, opened on 7 August and closed at 5pm on 28 August. The law says that an independent ward candidate must submit a nomination form signed by at least 50 voters whose names appear on the voters’ roll for that ward.
The regulations also require the identity number of each supporter so their voter registration can be checked. Naidoo delivered his nomination to the Commission’s eThekwini offices at about 4pm on 28 August, just an hour before the deadline. His form included 58 signatures.
When the commission checked the certified voters’ roll for Ward 26, it found that some of the identity numbers were wrong. Others belonged to people who were either not registered to vote or registered outside the ward.
As a result, the commission could only verify 43 supporters registered in Ward 26. On 31 August, it told Naidoo that his nomination was invalid because it did not meet the legal minimum, so he could not stand as an independent candidate.
Naidoo then went to the Electoral Court, asking it to review and set aside the commission’s decision. He wanted a declaration that he had met the requirements and an order forcing the commission to accept corrected identity numbers and allow him on the ballot.
Candidate argues that identity numbers should be corrected
Naidoo admitted in his written arguments and in court that some of the identity numbers he had submitted were incorrect. He said it was hard to get identity numbers because voters were reluctant to share personal information, and he relied on the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA).
He also argued that some supporters’ signatures should have been accepted because those individuals must have appeared on the voters’ roll, since they had voted in the previous election. Naidoo said that fixing the identity numbers would not change his nomination because the information had already been submitted before the deadline. He said the commission should let him correct the numbers or details so he could meet the 50 voter threshold.
The commission opposed his application, saying that Naidoo’s own admissions showed he had not managed to get the required number of verified supporters by the deadline. It argued that the legal requirement was strict and his nomination could not be changed after the cut-off.
The commission also objected to the POPIA argument, saying that any difficulties with identity numbers were not part of Naidoo’s original case.
Electoral Court finds nomination requirements are mandatory
The court considered whether Naidoo had complied with the legal requirements and, if not, whether the commission should have let him fix his nomination. The law says that a person can only contest an election as a ward candidate if they are nominated on the right form and submit it by the deadline. Independent ward candidates must secure at least 50 supporters registered in the ward. The court stressed that these rules are strict and must be followed.
The court referred to an earlier case, Nyaku v The Electoral Commission, where a candidate’s nomination was found invalid because the supporting documents were submitted late. The judgment said Naidoo’s case was similar because he did not have the minimum 50 verified supporters, since some identity numbers were wrong.
The court found that the law does not allow a candidate to fix a nomination form that does not have the required 50 signatures after the deadline has passed. The court said Naidoo’s disqualification was correct because he did not comply with the law and the rules.
The court also did not decide on his claim that the identity number requirement was unreasonable because it was hard to get personal information under POPIA. The court said this issue was not properly before them because Naidoo had not directly challenged the law or the regulations.
Court accepts late filing but dismisses review
There was also a procedural issue about how much time is allowed to challenge a commission decision. The rules say that a review application must be brought within three days of a Commission decision. If someone misses this deadline, they can be barred unless the court allows it for a good reason.
Naidoo brought his application about seven days late. He blamed the delay on the Commission’s letter of 31 August, which wrongly said the review period was seven days and referred to the wrong law.
The Commission admitted that its letter had mistakes about the review period and the law, but said these mistakes did not cause the delay. The Commission did not oppose giving extra time and wanted the case decided on its merits.
The court agreed that the delay was only a few days and would not harm the commission. It also said that electoral disputes are always urgent and need to be resolved quickly for the public good. Even though the court allowed the matter to go ahead, it found that Naidoo had not met the required nomination rules.
The application was dismissed, and each party was told to pay its own costs. The court said it is usually reluctant to make an unsuccessful party pay costs in electoral cases unless there are good reasons. The commission did not ask for costs against Naidoo.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
