THE Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) wants a decision on whether former president Jacob Zuma will be on the ballot before the 29 May elections, or not.
In an affidavit submitted to the Apex Court, the commission’s legal representative, Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC said Zuma's standing in the elections is not good for the rule of law.
He told the court: “The interests of justice unquestionably demand of this court to decide this matter now, not after the elections.”
The commission turned to the Apex Court to seek clarification on the Electoral Court's decision to allow Zuma back on the ballot paper.
Zuma, the face of the MK party’s election campaign, had been excluded from the list because there was an objection against him.
“It's in the interests of justice that voters know if Zuma is eligible before they go to the polls. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal wouldn't be feasible before then nor even before the MK party and Mr Zuma’s suggested deadline of mid-June 2024,” reads the affidavit.
ALSO READ: Holomisa - Not yet Uhuru!
The Electoral Court recently supported Zuma's challenge to his disqualification under Section 47(1)(e), finding that the commission mistakenly applied this section to Zuma, given that his 15-month sentence was final.
In 2021, Zuma was sentenced to 15 months for contempt of court, having ignored an order to appear at a corruption inquiry related to his presidency.
Subsequently, in 2023, President Cyril Ramaphosa granted remission to Zuma and 9 487 other prisoners serving sentences of less than two years for non-violent offences, shortening their sentences.
According to Section 47, no person convicted for more than 12 months, without the option of a fine, is allowed to hold public office.
“Mr Zuma has no right to appeal his conviction and sentence, and the time to debate the constitutionality of him having no right to appeal his conviction and sentence has long come and gone. But that does not mean his sentence is not a sentence. It means something more sensible, the proviso in Section 47(1)(e) does not apply, and so ineligibility kicked in as soon as this court imposed its sentence,” said Ngcukaitobi.
