Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

1. The right to elect and be elected for public office is a fundamental tenet of modern democracy. It is the Applicant’s case that the electoral laws of this country impinge upon that right in a constitutionally invalid manner, more especially in that they fail to regulate the position of individuals who wish to stand for election at national or provincial level.

2. The matter was launched on an urgent basis and the Applicant sought an order compelling parliament to remedy the perceived invalidity forthwith and before the pending elections set to take place on 8 May 2019 - that is a few weeks from now. The relief sought has been amended and the Applicant’s now ask that it be resolved “as soon as possible”. Any relief granted would, I think, cause substantial distress and uncertainty in relation to the upcoming elections.

3. Save for the Second Applicant, the applicants are not for profit companies or associations. They appear to have similar objectives and it is not entirely clear from their papers whether each of these organisations has a distinct membership and the extent thereof. The founding document of the First Applicant states, inter alia, “the nation has been robbed of its birthright of direct representations in a people’s governance system and of the nation’s resources through the implementation of an unjust, partisan, greed-driven, secular-humanist system”. Such language permeates the document. Ultimately it is akin to the charter of a political organisation, albeit phrased in somewhat unusual language.