By JD GLOBAL MEDIA
A legal dispute over how political parties submitted their proportional-representation candidate lists has moved closer to a hearing in South Africa’s Electoral Court, with ActionSA and the Economic Freedom Fighters defending their decision to submit single-name lists in municipalities ahead of the 4 November 2026 local government elections.
The dispute follows an urgent application brought by the Democratic Alliance against ActionSA, the EFF, the uMkhonto weSizwe Party and GOOD.
The DA argues that the parties have used a provision in the municipal electoral framework in a manner that prevents voters from seeing the full complement of proportional-representation candidates before election day.
The four parties dispute that interpretation.
ActionSA and the EFF have filed responses asking the Electoral Court to dismiss the DA's applications against them. They argue that the applicable legislation permits parties to supplement their proportional-representation lists under specified circumstances and that submitting a single candidate does not, by itself, amount to an unlawful act.
The legal dispute has become one of the latest political battles to emerge ahead of the November local government elections, with the parties now preparing to make their respective arguments before the court.
How The Dispute Started
The dispute centres on proportional-representation candidate lists used in municipal elections.
South Africa's municipal electoral system provides for ward councillors as well as councillors allocated through proportional representation.
Political parties submit candidate lists for proportional representation before the election.
The controversy arose after several parties submitted only one candidate on their proportional-representation lists in some municipalities, despite contesting enough wards and having the potential to obtain more than one proportional seat.
ActionSA, the EFF, the MK Party and GOOD are among the parties that followed this approach.
The DA subsequently approached the Electoral Court, arguing that the practice prevents voters from knowing the identities of candidates who could ultimately occupy proportional-representation seats.
The DA maintains that the legal mechanism allowing lists to be supplemented was designed to deal with circumstances that could arise after an election, rather than to allow parties to intentionally postpone the selection or disclosure of candidates until after voters have cast their ballots.
The party has asked the court to determine whether the practice is legally permissible and constitutionally valid.
ActionSA's Response
ActionSA has rejected the DA's interpretation.
In its response, the party says its decision to submit one-name proportional-representation lists was deliberate but lawful.
The party's national chairperson, Michael Beaumont, has argued that the legislation does not impose a minimum number of candidates that must appear on a proportional-representation list at the nomination stage in the circumstances being challenged.
ActionSA says its candidate-selection approach is designed to allow the eventual distribution of proportional-representation positions to reflect the performance of candidates during the election campaign.
The party has previously explained that it wants ward candidates who perform strongly during the election campaign to have an opportunity to move onto the proportional-representation list after the number of seats won by the party has been established.
ActionSA therefore disputes the allegation that it concealed candidates in order to mislead voters.
The party's position is that voters are choosing a political party for proportional representation and that the legislation provides a lawful mechanism for the subsequent supplementation of the list.
That interpretation is now being tested in court.
EFF Also Challenges The DA's Argument
The Economic Freedom Fighters has adopted a similar legal position.
EFF secretary-general Marshall Dlamini has asked the Electoral Court to dismiss the DA's application against the party.
The EFF argues that there is no statutory requirement establishing a minimum number of proportional-representation candidates that must be submitted on a party's list.
The party also disputes the suggestion that its approach amounts to an attempt to evade electoral law.
Its argument is that the relevant legislation establishes a mechanism through which candidate lists can be supplemented and that the parties are entitled to rely on that mechanism.
The EFF has therefore asked the court to consider the wording of the law rather than assumptions about why parties decided to use the provision.
The legal argument will require the court to examine the relevant electoral legislation, the nomination process and the purpose of the provisions governing the supplementation of candidate lists.
DA's Position
The Democratic Alliance has taken a different interpretation.
The party argues that voters should know who the potential councillors are before they cast their ballots.
Its case is based on the principle that voters should have sufficient information about the candidates associated with the political parties they are choosing.
The DA says the provision allowing additional candidates to be added after an election was intended to deal with unexpected circumstances in which a party wins more proportional-representation seats than the number of candidates available on its list.
According to the DA, using the mechanism deliberately before an election in order to submit only one candidate changes the purpose of the provision.
The party has therefore asked the Electoral Court to determine whether political parties may deliberately submit incomplete proportional-representation lists and subsequently add candidates after the election.
The court's interpretation could have implications beyond the four parties directly named in the application.
Why The Case Matters
The dispute has broader implications because proportional-representation candidates can become councillors without contesting individual wards.
Their positions are determined by the number of proportional seats a political party receives and the applicable allocation rules.
The identity of those candidates can therefore become important to voters and political parties.
If the court determines that parties must provide complete lists before an election, the ruling could affect the way political organisations prepare their candidate lists in future municipal elections.
If the court upholds the interpretation relied upon by ActionSA and the EFF, parties could retain the ability to use the supplementation mechanism in the manner they have adopted.
The court's decision could therefore clarify an area of electoral practice that has become increasingly relevant as South Africa's political landscape has become more fragmented.
The 2026 Election Context
The dispute comes during a particularly competitive local election campaign.
South Africans will vote in municipal elections on 4 November 2026.
Political parties are contesting seats across municipalities, while several metropolitan areas have attracted particularly intense competition.
The fragmented nature of municipal politics has increased the importance of candidate lists because councils can be formed through combinations of parties where no single party obtains enough seats to govern alone.
In that environment, the identity and experience of proportional-representation councillors can become important after election results are declared.
The current court dispute therefore extends beyond a technical disagreement over paperwork.
It concerns how parties choose candidates, how voters obtain information before voting and how municipal councils will ultimately be constituted.
Candidate Selection And Party Strategy
ActionSA has openly explained that its approach is connected to candidate performance.
The party has said that it wants ward candidates to have an opportunity to earn proportional-representation positions based on their performance during the campaign.
That approach differs from a system in which a party determines the complete order of its proportional-representation candidates before election day.
The DA's objection is that the electorate should know the candidates associated with a party before voting.
The disagreement therefore reflects two different interpretations of how candidate selection should operate.
One approach places greater emphasis on the party's ability to adjust its list after voters have determined the number of seats it will receive.
The other places greater emphasis on advance disclosure of the candidates who may ultimately take those seats.
The Electoral Court will have to consider the legislation governing the process and determine which interpretation is consistent with the law.
Previous Use Of List Supplementation
ActionSA has also argued that the supplementation mechanism is not a new concept in South African elections.
The party has pointed to previous municipal elections in which political parties have used provisions allowing candidate lists to be supplemented.
ActionSA has further alleged that the DA itself has used the mechanism in previous elections and in the current electoral cycle.
Those claims are part of ActionSA's response to the legal challenge.
The DA, however, argues that the current circumstances are different because the parties have deliberately submitted one-name lists across municipalities rather than relying on supplementation only after unexpectedly winning additional seats.
The difference between those interpretations will be relevant to the court's consideration of the case.
The Role Of The Electoral Commission
The Independent Electoral Commission is responsible for administering the local government elections and certifying candidates who meet the legal requirements.
The dispute does not concern whether voters will be able to cast ballots for the parties involved.
Instead, it concerns the composition of the proportional-representation candidate lists and the circumstances in which those lists may subsequently be supplemented.
The IEC's role is particularly important because it must apply the electoral framework consistently to all participating parties.
A court ruling could provide further guidance to the commission and political parties on how the relevant provisions should be interpreted.
Legal Arguments Rather Than Political Predictions
Because the case remains before the Electoral Court, the competing claims should not be treated as established findings.
The DA has made allegations about the purpose and effect of the single-name lists.
ActionSA and the EFF have rejected those allegations and maintain that their actions are permitted under the electoral framework.
The court has not yet determined the merits of the competing arguments.
The final legal position will therefore depend on the court's interpretation of the legislation and the evidence placed before it.
This distinction is important because political parties involved in an election campaign naturally present arguments that support their own positions.
A court, however, will consider the applicable law and evidence rather than the political arguments surrounding the dispute.
Potential Effect On Municipal Councils
The outcome could become significant after election day.
If parties are permitted to supplement their lists under the disputed mechanism, they may have greater flexibility to determine which candidates eventually occupy proportional-representation seats.
If the court places restrictions on that practice, parties may have to disclose a broader group of potential candidates before voters go to the polls.
The ruling could also affect how political parties design their candidate-selection procedures for future elections.
Municipal councils are made up of elected representatives whose responsibilities include participating in council decisions, committees, oversight structures and municipal governance.
The composition of those councils can therefore influence how municipalities operate after elections.
Court Battle Comes As Campaigns Intensify
The legal dispute is taking place as political parties increase their campaign activities ahead of the November vote.
Parties are launching manifestos, unveiling mayoral candidates and campaigning for support across municipalities.
The Electoral Court case adds another layer to an already active election period.
For voters, the dispute highlights the importance of understanding not only party manifestos but also the electoral system through which councillors are selected.
The controversy also illustrates how changes in political competition can expose questions about electoral procedures that may not have attracted the same level of attention when party dominance was more predictable in many municipalities.
What Happens Next
The Electoral Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the matter during the coming week.
The court will consider the DA's application and the responses filed by the affected parties.
The central legal question is whether the relevant electoral provisions permit political parties to deliberately submit single-name proportional-representation lists and later supplement those lists based on the number of seats won.
The court may also have to consider whether the practice affects voters' constitutional and statutory rights to information about candidates.
Until judgment is delivered, the parties' competing interpretations remain arguments before the court.
The dispute therefore remains unresolved.
The case has nevertheless become an important development in the run-up to the 4 November local government elections because its outcome could clarify the rules governing proportional-representation candidate lists.
For ActionSA and the EFF, the immediate objective is to defend their interpretation of the electoral framework.
For the DA, the legal challenge is aimed at establishing whether parties can use the supplementation mechanism as a deliberate candidate-selection strategy before an election.
For the Electoral Court, the task will be to interpret the law and determine how the relevant provisions apply to the circumstances before it.
The eventual ruling could provide political parties, election administrators and voters with clearer guidance on how proportional-representation candidate lists should be handled in municipal elections.
Until that decision is issued, the single-name lists submitted by ActionSA, the EFF, the MK Party and GOOD remain at the centre of an unresolved legal dispute that is unfolding just weeks before South Africans vote in the 2026 local government elections.
Comments
Post a Comment