The Electoral Court has dismissed the Democratic Alliance’s challenge to single-name proportional representation lists submitted by four opposition parties ahead of the municipal elections.
Acting Judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood on Friday rejected the DA’s claims that GOOD, ActionSA, the EFF and MK Party had submitted unlawful lists in bad faith.
The DA had asked the court to declare the lists unconstitutional and prevent the parties from adding candidates after the 4 November elections.
Why the DA went to court
The four parties submitted PR lists containing only one name in many municipalities, despite contesting substantially more wards.
The DA argued this was a deliberate plan to hide candidates from voters until after the vote count, then use a legal provision to add names once seat allocations were known.
Item 17 of Schedule 1 to the Municipal Structures Act allows the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) to request a supplemented list when a party wins more seats than candidates initially listed.
The DA claimed the parties were using this mechanism to subvert the law and keep voters in the dark. It sought orders invalidating the lists and prohibiting post-election supplementation.
Court rejects DA’s arguments
The court found no factual basis for the DA’s claims of bad faith or fraud.
In GOOD’s case, the judgment noted the party had written to the IEC before submitting its lists, explaining its approach and asking whether it could submit single-candidate lists and supplement them after the election.
The court found this correspondence “dispels any notion of concealment or disguise”.
The judgment confirmed that Item 17 allows parties to supplement their lists once seat entitlement is known after the vote count, and that this is part of the statutory design, “not an accident or due to mala fide opportunism”.
Judge Lebogang Modiba noted during the hearing that PR voters vote for a party rather than individual candidates, and that candidates become relevant when seats are allocated.
The court rejected the DA’s proposed test of whether a party “genuinely” underestimated its support, holding this would intrude on Parliament’s role.
Timing criticised
The court described the disruption that the DA’s requested relief would cause as “unthinkable”, cautioning that “changing the rules in the middle of the game” may have unfair consequences.
The DA filed the case weeks before voting day, after nominations had closed and lists were certified.
According to the IEC, parties have submitted lists this way since 2011. The court also recorded that the opposing parties pointed to the DA using the same practice, including in these elections.
The IEC had opposed the DA’s challenge, describing it as legally without merit and warning it would disrupt the elections.
The court made no order as to costs. It postponed indefinitely the DA’s broader application seeking to declare the IEC’s decision to publish the lists unconstitutional and invalid.
GOOD party responds
In a statement after the judgment, GOOD said the case was never about protecting voters but “an attempt to brand four opposition parties as fraudsters in the final days of a campaign”.
“It failed on every count the Court decided,” the party said.
GOOD said its PR lists stand and called on the DA to withdraw its allegations of fraud and bad faith and apologise to the parties.
ActionSA also welcomed the judgment, claiming the DA had submitted single-name PR lists in at least 13 municipalities.
ALSO READ: ANC secures last-minute ballot victory as ConCourt overturns candidate list dispute
