The Constitutional Court is set to decide on Monday, 20 May 2024, whether Jacob Zuma can return to Parliament.
BREAKING: Constitutional Court rules Jacob Zuma is not eligible to stand for election in Parliament for five years. More updates to follow.
What the ConCourt will consider in ruling on Jacob Zuma’s return to Parliament
PLEASE NOTE: The third-party content below is shared on our platform for journalistic purposes. Swisher Post, its parent company, partners and affiliates shall not be held liable for any consequence that arises from the journalistic duties performed in sharing this content
The Constitutional Court is expected to address several key legal questions concerning former Zuma’s eligibility to stand as a candidate for the National Assembly.
These questions arise from his previous conviction and subsequent sentence, which have raised constitutional issues regarding his eligibility under section 47(1)(e) of the South African Constitution.
This section disqualifies individuals sentenced to more than 12 months of imprisonment without the option of a fine from standing for election to the National Assembly, for five years following the completion of their sentence.
- Proper Interpretation of Section 47(1)(e): The court will examine whether Zuma’s conviction and the 15-month imprisonment sentence disqualify him from standing for election. The interpretation of what constitutes the completion of a sentence, especially considering Zuma’s remission of the sentence, will be pivotal.
- Effect of Remission of Sentence: The court will determine whether the remission of Zuma’s sentence, granted by President Cyril Ramaphosa, affects his disqualification under section 47(1)(e). The remission reduced Zuma’s effective imprisonment time, raising questions about whether this impacts his eligibility to stand for election.
- Jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission: The court will consider whether the Electoral Commission of South Africa exceeded its powers by determining Zuma’s eligibility. The MK Party, which nominated Zuma, contends that only Parliament can regulate the eligibility of its members.
- Reasonable Apprehension of Bias: The court will evaluate whether there was any bias from the Electoral Commission in determining Zuma’s candidacy. This includes considering allegations that a public statement made by Commissioner Janet Love prejudiced Zuma’s case.
- Conviction Status: The court will assess whether a conviction that is not subject to appeal qualifies as a conviction for the purposes of section 47(1)(e).
What are the merits of MK Party’s case?
The MK Party, represented by Jacob Zuma, argues that the Electoral Commission erred in its decision to disqualify Zuma based on his prior conviction and sentence.
The key points in their argument include:
- Distinction Between Candidate Qualification and Membership Eligibility: The MK Party claims that the Commission conflated the qualifications for candidacy with the qualifications for membership in the National Assembly, which should be determined separately.
- Impact of Remission: The party argues that the Presidential remission effectively reduced Zuma’s sentence to three months, making him eligible under section 47(1)(e), which requires a sentence of more than 12 months to disqualify a candidate.
- Bias and Procedural Fairness: The MK Party asserts that statements made by Commissioner Love and the process followed by the Commission demonstrated bias and lacked procedural fairness.
- Separation of Powers: They argue that the Commission overstepped its authority, as the Constitution grants the National Assembly the power to regulate its own affairs, including determining the eligibility of its members.