On 25 March 2011, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) attempted to nominate Mr Mzwandile Beatus Mbhele as its candidate for Ward 4 in Indaka Municipality for local government elections. The Electoral Commission's officials informed the IFP that Mr Mbhele's name appeared on the Msinga Municipality segment of the voters' roll, not Indaka Municipality, and therefore could not accept his nomination. The IFP then nominated Sboniso Vincent Ndlovu instead, which was accepted. Mr Mbhele maintained he did not register in Msinga Municipality. He visited his voting station in Indaka Municipality on 5-6 March 2011 to confirm his registration there. However, the Electoral Commission's records showed that on 6 March 2011, Mr Mbhele registered as a voter in Msinga Municipality. When Mr Mbhele demanded the registration documentation from Msinga on 28 March 2011, the REC 1 re-registration form could not be located. Mr Mbhele suspected fraudulent re-registration to disqualify him but could not identify the perpetrators. His identity document was either stolen or lost. The Electoral Commission reported the matter to police and informed the IFP by letter dated 18 April 2011 that it could not accept Mr Mbhele's nomination.
The review application was dismissed with costs.
Section 17(3)(b) of the Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act 27 of 2000 is an absolute bar to the acceptance of a nomination of a ward candidate who is not registered as a voter on the segment of the voters' roll for the municipality within which the ward falls. The Electoral Commission has no discretion to condone non-compliance with this statutory requirement. Electoral officials are not required to investigate the reasons for the absence of a candidate's name from the relevant segment of the voters' roll or to investigate suspicious circumstances; it is sufficient to consult the voters' roll to determine if a person's name appears thereon. A voter is defined in section 1 of the Act as a person whose name appears on the voters' roll, making the voters' roll the definitive record of voter registration status.
The Court observed that the circumstances surrounding Mr Mbhele's re-registration were unfortunate and suspicious, and expressed sympathy for his position. However, the Court noted that such circumstances, however suspicious or unfavourable, cannot compel Electoral Commission officials to contravene the clear requirements of the Act, nor can they confer powers that officials do not possess. The Court suggested that Mr Mbhele's only remedy lies in the police investigation, from which might emerge the truth behind his re-registration in Msinga. The Court noted that in motion proceedings, courts are bound to decide matters of fact only on the papers before them and are not permitted to draw inferences of fact from affidavits purely on a weighing up of probabilities, citing Langa CJ and Others v Hlophe 2009 (4) SA 382 (SCA), National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA), and Administrator, Transvaal and Others v Theletsane and Others 1991 (2) SA 192 (A). The Court also observed that requiring electoral officials to investigate each discrepancy would render it very difficult for the Electoral Commission to conduct a proper election involving millions of South African citizens.
This case establishes important principles regarding electoral administration in South Africa. It clarifies that the Electoral Commission has no discretion to condone non-compliance with statutory requirements for candidate nomination, even in potentially suspicious circumstances. The judgment reinforces that electoral officials must rely on the voters' roll as the definitive record of voter registration and are not required to investigate discrepancies or suspicious circumstances when processing candidate nominations. This ensures certainty and efficiency in electoral administration while placing the burden on candidates to ensure their registration details are correct before nomination deadlines. The case also demonstrates the limited scope for judicial intervention in electoral processes where statutory requirements have not been met, even where potential fraud or injustice may be suspected. It illustrates the tension between procedural certainty required for effective electoral administration and individual justice in cases of alleged fraudulent interference with voter registration.
Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate