ANC’s electoral court battle: A test of electoral rules, technology and voters’ rights

Save as PDF 

Johannesburg — The African National Congress is taking its dispute over the exclusion of 181 candidates to South Africa’s Electoral Court, arguing that a technical failure in the electoral nomination system should not prevent voters from choosing candidates whose information had already been captured on the Independent Electoral Commission’s platform before the submission deadline.

What initially appeared to be an administrative dispute has now developed into a broader legal test of South Africa’s increasingly digital electoral system, and of how election law should respond when procedural deadlines collide with credible claims of technological failure.

For the ANC, the case is not about seeking preferential treatment or extending an electoral deadline for political convenience. It is about determining whether candidates who were ready to be submitted were prevented from completing the final electronic step by circumstances beyond their control, the distinction could prove decisive.

The central question: what constitutes submission?

The ANC’s legal argument rests on a relatively straightforward proposition: candidate information had been entered into the IEC’s electronic system before the 5 p.m. deadline on August 28, but technical interruptions allegedly prevented party officials from completing the final submission process.

According to the ANC, its officials were logged out of the platform shortly before the deadline, including at approximately 4:34 p.m. and again at 4:57 p.m. The party argues that the relevant candidate information had already been captured and that the problem occurred during the final stage required to complete the submission.

That creates the central legal question before the court:

Should a candidate nomination be treated as legally incomplete when the party has completed the substantive work before the deadline but is prevented by a technical failure from completing the final electronic confirmation?

The IEC takes a stricter view, arguing that a nomination is only legally submitted once the final electronic submission process has been completed.

The court will therefore have to distinguish between a party that simply failed to meet the deadline and a party that attempted to comply but was allegedly prevented from doing so by the electoral system itself.

The ANC’s strongest argument: voters should not lose representation because of technology

The political significance of the dispute lies in the potential consequences for voters.

The ANC says approximately 181 candidates were affected across six municipalities, including municipalities in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Mangaung. The candidates include both proportional-representation and ward candidates.

Several prominent ANC figures are reportedly among those affected, including Frank Chikane, Andile Lungisa and Nocawe Mafu.

But the broader issue goes beyond individual political personalities.

At stake is whether voters in affected municipalities should lose the opportunity to choose candidates because a digital process was allegedly not completed despite the party having attempted to comply before the deadline.

That gives the ANC a potentially powerful constitutional argument.

Election rules exist to protect the integrity of the democratic process. But the ultimate purpose of those rules is to facilitate meaningful political participation and representation.

The ANC can therefore frame its case not as an attempt to weaken electoral rules, but as an attempt to ensure that those rules do not produce an outcome disconnected from their democratic purpose.

The IEC’s position remains critical

The IEC has rejected the ANC’s account and maintains that the submission deadline was clear and applied equally to all political parties.

The commission’s position is that entering or saving candidate information on the system does not constitute formal submission. The final electronic confirmation was required before 5 p.m, that is a legally coherent position.

Electoral commissions need predictable rules. Deadlines cannot ordinarily be treated as suggestions, particularly when ballot preparation, verification and printing depend upon them.

The IEC also argues that its technical records do not establish a system-wide failure and that other political parties managed to complete their submissions within the prescribed period, but this does not necessarily resolve the ANC’s case.

The central question is not whether the entire IEC system collapsed.

It is whether the system prevented the ANC, in the particular municipalities concerned, from completing valid submissions despite its officials having taken the necessary steps before the deadline, that is a much narrower factual question.

The evidence could decide the case

For the ANC, the strongest route to victory is likely to be technical rather than political.

The Electoral Court could place considerable weight on digital evidence showing what happened in the minutes immediately before 5 p.m.

That could include: server logs; login and logout records; system timestamps; audit trails; screenshots; error messages; communications between ANC officials and the IEC; evidence of attempted submissions; records showing when candidate information was uploaded and evidence of similar technical problems affecting users of the platform.

If the ANC can establish a clear digital trail showing that its officials were actively attempting to submit the lists and that the platform prevented completion, the case becomes substantially stronger.

The party would then be asking the court to distinguish between non-compliance and attempted compliance frustrated by a technical failure.

That distinction could allow the court to protect the integrity of the election without creating a general licence for parties to submit candidate lists late.

The 2024 precedent does not necessarily close the door

One of the IEC’s strongest arguments is the Constitutional Court’s approach to electoral deadlines in litigation arising from the 2024 elections.

In those cases, the courts placed significant emphasis on the importance of electoral timetables and the need for certainty, that precedent presents a real challenge for the ANC.

But it should not necessarily be read as meaning that every future claim involving an electronic system failure must fail.

The crucial question remains whether the factual evidence in the ANC’s case establishes a materially different situation.

If the ANC can demonstrate that its candidates’ information had already been captured, that officials were attempting to complete the process before the deadline and that the platform itself prevented finalisation, the court could potentially distinguish the case from circumstances in which a party simply failed to submit its lists on time.

In other words, the precedent may establish the importance of deadlines without eliminating judicial scrutiny of genuine systemic failure.

A test for South Africa’s digital democracy

The case also raises a question that extends beyond the ANC.

South Africa’s electoral system is increasingly dependent on digital infrastructure. Political parties are expected to interact with sophisticated online platforms under strict deadlines, that creates a new legal reality.

When an election becomes partly digital, the reliability of the technology becomes part of the integrity of the electoral process itself.

The principle should be simple: political parties must comply with electoral deadlines, but electoral technology must also provide a reliable means of complying with those deadlines.

The ANC’s case therefore has the potential to establish an important principle for future elections: procedural certainty and technological reliability must operate together.

Political pressure, but also an opportunity

The dispute inevitably carries political risks for the ANC.

The exclusion of prominent candidates can create questions about organisational efficiency, particularly at a time when the party is fighting to retain influence in several important municipalities.

Yet the court action also provides the ANC with an opportunity to demonstrate institutional confidence.

Rather than accepting the exclusion without challenge, the party has chosen to place the dispute before an independent judicial forum and allow the evidence to determine the outcome.

That is important.

The ANC’s legal strategy effectively says that it does not want special treatment. It wants a determination based on evidence, electoral law and the constitutional importance of political representation.

If the court accepts that the system prevented valid submissions from being completed, the ANC could emerge from the dispute not merely with its candidates restored, but with a broader legal clarification of how digital electoral failures should be handled in future.

The broader democratic principle

The most persuasive ANC argument may ultimately be found in the tension between procedural certainty and democratic representation.

There is no serious dispute that electoral deadlines matter, but deadlines exist to organise elections, not to disenfranchise voters.

The challenge for the court is therefore to determine whether enforcing the deadline in these particular circumstances protects electoral integrity or whether it would impose a disproportionate consequence on candidates and voters who may have been prevented from completing the process because of a technical failure.

That is why the ANC’s case deserves to be considered on its evidence rather than dismissed simply as an attempt to reopen a closed deadline.

What happens next?

The Electoral Court will ultimately have to examine the technical record and determine whether the ANC has demonstrated sufficient grounds for relief, three broad outcomes are possible.

The court could reject the ANC’s application and uphold the IEC’s decision, it could grant the ANC relief if it concludes that technical problems materially prevented valid submissions.

Or it could adopt a more limited remedy, potentially distinguishing between municipalities or candidates depending on the evidence presented.

For the ANC, the second possibility represents the clearest path forward, but it depends heavily on the quality of the technical evidence.

A test of both institutions

This dispute should therefore not be reduced to a simple confrontation between the ANC and the IEC, it is ultimately a test of both institutions.

The IEC must demonstrate that its electoral technology operated reliably and that its rules were applied consistently.

The ANC must demonstrate that it acted diligently, attempted to comply with the deadline and was genuinely prevented from completing the process by circumstances outside its control.

The Electoral Court will then have to determine where responsibility lies.

For the ANC, the most optimistic reading is also the most institutionally credible: the party is not asking the court to change the rules; it is asking the court to determine whether the rules were capable of being complied with under the circumstances that occurred.

If the evidence supports the ANC’s account, the case could ultimately strengthen rather than weaken South Africa’s electoral system.

It could establish that strict electoral deadlines remain essential, while also recognising that democracy cannot depend blindly on technology when that technology may itself prevent lawful participation.

The ultimate test is therefore not whether the ANC should receive an exception.

It is whether every political party, every candidate and every voter can have confidence that South Africa’s electoral system will protect both procedural fairness and the democratic right to representation.

That is a principle from which the ANC, the IEC and South African democracy as a whole stand to benefit.