The Independent Electoral Commission recently received over 300 objections lodged against candidates submitted to represent parties in government. According to a news report, 297 of these objections related to candidates not being on the voters' roll, not being South African citizens or a failure to submit the candidate's undertaking to be bound by the Electoral Code of Conduct contained in the Electoral Act of 1998. Two candidates were objected to because they are dead.
The fact that objections may be lodged leads one to believe that there must be many protective measures in place to ensure that only the best qualified candidates and cream of the crop are appointed to manage the affairs of South Africa. One would expect there to be far more stringent qualifications for persons managing the affairs of our country as opposed to managing the affairs of a company.
The grounds for disqualification of persons who are entitled to be appointed as members of the national assembly and the provincial legislature are set out in the Constitution. The prerequisite is that a person must be entitled to vote for the national assembly and the provincial legislature respectively. The 1973 Companies Act sets out the criteria disqualifying a person from being appointed as the director or manager of a company. There are various areas in which the respective qualifications differ.
An individual who is in the service of the State and receives remuneration for that appointment or service (other than the President, Cabinet Ministers and certain others) is disqualified, whereas directors are frequently also company employees.
No unrehabilitated insolvents may be appointed to Parliament. An unrehabilitated insolvent can be appointed as a director of a company with the approval of the courts.
Someone who is declared to be of unsound mind by a court cannot be appointed to the national assembly or the provincial legislature. The Companies Act disqualifies any person who is a minor or any other person under legal disability which goes beyond merely being unsound of mind.
Any person who is convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than 12 months' imprisonment without the option of a fine, either in South Africa (or outside South Africa if the offence is considered a crime in South Africa) cannot be appointed to parliament until five years after completing such a sentence.
A person who has at any time been convicted anywhere of theft, fraud, forgery or uttering a forged document, perjury or any offence involving dishonesty or in connection with the promotion, formation or management of a company, and has been sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine or to a fine exceeding one hundred rand cannot be a company director without the approval of a court. There is no time limit on this disqualification.
Other persons are also disqualified from acting as a director unless granted approval by a court. This includes someone who is removed from an office of trust on account of misconduct. But strangely, a person removed from his or her appointment to the national assembly and the provincial legislature is not disqualified from being reappointed. This can lead to the farcical situation of dismissing a person for misconduct and submitting them for election the following day.
One argument for the more stringent requirements on the appointment of a director is that a private company can be run by one director but the country cannot be run by one person. There will, theoretically, always be other people to ensure an abuse of power does not occur. But, notionally, you could have a majority of people in parliament running the country who could not be directors of a company managing a corner shop.
It is also apparent that a person who has been convicted of the most heinous of crimes such as war crimes, rape, child abuse, torture or drug abuse can go to parliament five years after completing his or her sentence. There is no prerequisite that must be met such as the person having to be declared fit and proper and rehabilitated by a court or any other tribunal.
Whilst it must be recognised that a person can be rehabilitated and should be accepted back into civil society, the questions then come to mind: Do we want a person who has been convicted of war crimes to be able to serve as Minister of Defence? Do we want a person who has been convicted of drug abuse appointed as the Minister of Health?
How is it possible for the political parties to submit more than 300 candidates who are being objected to for failing to meet the requirements to be a member of the national assembly and the provincial legislature? The vast majority of disqualifications are not tricky or difficult to comprehend either. Simple questions such as are you registered to vote, are you South African, have you submitted undertakings to be bound by the Electoral Code of Conduct or are you alive would solve this problem.

Further, there should be repercussions for parties submitting and persons allowing themselves to be submitted as candidates by a party. A director who is appointed when disqualified and any person who knew that the person was disqualified is guilty of an offence. Why are parties and their candidates not penalised for submitting candidates who they knew were disqualified? The IEC should not have to spend time and resources ensuring that the candidates are properly qualified without consequences for the proposers.

With ‘transparency and accountability' and ‘a strong stance against corruption' the buzz phrases for election campaigning, is it time to put measures in place to ensure that parties do a proper job when submitting candidates to manage the country and ensure only persons who are qualified to be appointed stand for election?

By Ismail Laher of Deneys Reitz