The Electoral Court has heard that the purpose of Section 47 of the Constitution is to ensure that lawbreakers do not become lawmakers.
The Electoral Commission (IEC) and former President Jacob Zuma faced off in the Electoral Court over the correct interpretation of the Section which effectively led to Zuma being disqualified from standing as a candidate ahead of the 29 May polls.
“Zuma aimed to challenge the decision made by the IEC by filing an appeal with the Electoral Court.”. It was an interpretation exercise in the Electoral Court, which is tasked with determining whether section 47 (1) (e) of the Constitution disqualifies Zuma’s candidature.
Counsel on behalf of the former president argued on several grounds that it does not. In the main, counsel submitted to the court that Zuma was not convicted of an offense through criminal proceedings and that the remission of sentence, he was granted effectively reduced his sentence from 15 months to three months, short of the 12-month yardstick stated in the legislation.
“That sentence would then read like this, the total sentence the applicant was to serve was 15 months, if the 12-month remission was deducted from this sentence, it would leave a sentence of three months,” says Adv. Dali Mpofu SC on behalf of the MK Party.
The Constitutional Court found Zuma guilty of contempt of court in 2021 and sentenced him to 15 months. Counsel on behalf of the IEC argued that the assertion by the MK Party that Zuma was not convicted of an offense because it was not through criminal proceedings is “plainly absurd.”.
Further emphasizing that the focus should be on the purpose of Section 47 in the Constitution, which deals with members of the National Assembly.
“What the constitutional drafters are trying to tell us is that serious lawbreakers should not be lawmakers; that is the purpose behind Section 47 (1)(e) of the constitution,” says Adv. Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC on behalf of the IEC.
He addressed the effect of sentence remission, stating that it doesn’t change the fact that the court imposed a 15-month sentence merely because of an executive decision. Judgment was reserved in the matter.
