- Elections analyst Michael Atkins says the ANC’s interpretation was ultimately incorrect in his view, but its argument exposed ambiguity in electoral regulations.
- Former IEC deputy chairperson Terry Tselane says the ANC’s case differed from previous disputes because the party argued that its candidate information was already in the commission’s system before the deadline.
- Tselane says the ruling does not undermine the IEC’s legitimacy and explains how the commission could amend its regulations or consider postponement if ballot changes cannot be completed in time.
Elections analyst Michael Atkins says he is “surprised but not shocked” by the Constitutional Court’s decision ordering the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) to include 181 ANC candidates on the ballot for the 2026 local government elections.
He told SABC News that the dispute exposed ambiguity in electoral regulations, while Terry Tselane, chairperson of Election Management Services in South Africa, has defended the commission’s established procedures and its legitimacy following the ruling.
The dispute arose after the ANC’s candidate nominations were rejected because the party had not completed the final submission step on the IEC’s online system before the deadline. The Constitutional Court subsequently ordered the commission to take the necessary steps to include the affected candidates.
The distinction between submission and missing a deadline
Tselane, a former deputy chairperson of the IEC, said the ANC’s argument differed from previous cases in which political parties blamed technical glitches for failing to meet nomination deadlines.
Speaking to Newzroom Afrika, he explained that the ANC’s argument was that it had submitted its information before the deadline and that the information was already available in the IEC’s system. The party maintained that the commission should use the information it had received rather than exclude its candidates because the final submission process had not been completed.
Tselane said the distinction was important because previous disputes had focused on whether parties had missed deadlines, while the ANC argued that it had complied with the deadline. He also said the dispute raised questions about Section 19 of the Constitution, which protects political rights, including the right to participate in elections and to vote.
Other parties could approach the courts
Tselane said other political parties in comparable circumstances could seek legal relief if they could demonstrate that their candidate information had been submitted through the proper channels and was already in the IEC’s system.
However, he cautioned that the decision should not automatically be understood as overturning previous judgments involving missed nomination deadlines. He distinguished the ANC’s argument that it had submitted its information on time from cases in which parties relied on technical problems to explain why they had failed to meet a deadline.
Tselane said the dispute also raised questions about whether the Electoral Act needed to be amended. In his view, the central issue concerned the technical aspects of the IEC’s electronic submission process, many of which are dealt with in the commission’s regulations.
He said the IEC could amend its regulations if it considered changes necessary, rather than requiring Parliament to revisit the Electoral Act.
Tselane defends the IEC’s legitimacy
Tselane rejected suggestions that the Constitutional Court’s decision against the IEC necessarily undermined the commission’s legitimacy.
He said the IEC had followed procedures it had used for more than a decade without being challenged, and argued that an adverse court ruling did not mean the commission had lost its legitimacy. “For more than 10 years since the system was introduced, they’ve been using the same process,” he said.
Tselane also pointed to the legal channels available to parties affected by the commission’s decisions, including challenges before the Electoral Court and further proceedings through the courts.
He argued that the fact that the Constitutional Court ruled against the IEC did not make the commission illegitimate, just as the Constitutional Court’s decision against the Electoral Court did not render that institution useless.
Tselane said he would defend the IEC’s decisions because the commission had followed its established procedures and the dispute had been handled within the legal framework governing elections.
Ballot changes and possible postponement
Atkins said the IEC could correct its candidate lists and reprint ballot papers already produced for the affected municipalities without disrupting the elections scheduled for 4 November.
He acknowledged that the ruling presented the commission with another last-minute challenge, but said it had faced more difficult situations and had contingency plans. “The IEC can manage this. You know, they’ve faced worse situations in a tighter corner before,” Atkins said.
He added that the commission could correct the official candidate lists and reprint affected ballots without disrupting the elections.
Tselane also discussed the possibility of further legal applications by political parties and the practical difficulties that could arise if numerous parties sought to have candidates reinstated across the country.
He pointed to Section 8 of the Local Government Electoral Act, saying the IEC could approach the responsible minister to postpone an election if it became overwhelmed and could not accommodate the changes within the available timeframes.
Tselane also noted that ballot printing is decentralised, with printers allocated ballots for particular municipalities. He said this could help the IEC concentrate on the affected municipalities rather than reprinting ballots across the country.
Atkins calls for clearer regulations
Atkins said the ANC had raised a reasonable argument about the wording of the Electoral Act and its regulations, although he believed the party’s interpretation was ultimately incorrect.
He also questioned whether the IEC had presented its case as clearly as it could have, saying the commission’s position could have been argued more crisply. Atkins maintained that electoral legislation must take precedence over administrative guidance where the legal requirements are not clearly spelt out.
“If the regulations and the law don’t spell it out, then the law is what counts. It isn’t what a user manual counts,” he said. He called for amendments to the nomination regulations to clarify the requirements political parties must meet when submitting candidates.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
