Previous 3 / 9 Next

3 [4] The matter concerns the registration of a political party, the second respondent. During 2016 the second respondent applied to the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of the Commission and was registered as a political party. Such application was in terms of s 15 of the Act. The CEO of the Commission is the official that is authorised and empowered to deal with the registration of political parties. The person who acted in the stead of the CEO implemented the provisions of s 15, save for the provisions of s 15(5)2. The second respondent was duly registered but the CEO failed to publish the prescribed particulars of the registration in the Government Gazette (the Gazette). He thus ignored the mandatory provisions of s 15(5). [5] The importance of the publication in the Gazette is that it is that act (ie the publication) that triggers the rights of other parties. Pursuant to the provisions s 16, a party receiving notice of the registration of a new party, may appeal such decision to register a party. In terms of the provisions of s 16(2): ‘Any party which is aggrieved by a decision of the chief electoral officer to register or not to register a party, may within 30 days after the party has been notified of the decision, appeal against a decision to the Commission in prescribed manner.’ [6] A party is defined in the Act3 to mean: ‘"party" means any registered party, and includes any organisation or movement of a political nature which publicly supports or opposes the policy, candidates or cause of any registered party, or which propagates non-participation in any election;’ and the term4 ‘“(r)egistered party” means any party registered in terms of section 15’. The result is that registered political parties may within 30 days of notification of the decision to register another political party, appeal that decision to the Commission. 2 ‘After a party has been registered the chief electoral officer shall issue that party with a registration certificate in the prescribed form and publish the prescribed particulars of such registration in the Gazette.’ 3 Section 1(1)(vi). 4 Section 1(1)(ix).

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Freedom Front Plus v. Electoral Commission of South Africa

Judgment

Alleged Acts: The respondent applied to be Chief Electoral Officer with the Commission.

Procedural history: The Court previously determined that the Commission must publish its decisions as soon as reasonably possible. The Commission failed to publish the registration of the respondent. The Commission asked the court to reiterate its findings.

Summary: Publication of registration is a triggering mechanism which permits other parties to bring a cause of action and appeal the decision on registration. However, the appellant in this case lodged a complaint without the objection. The Commission's dismissal of the complaint was improper because the thirty day requirements only begins once the public is given sufficient notice of the requirements.

Conclusion: The publication triggers the timeframe and the rights of the appellant in this case. The decision of the Commission to set aside the complaint is reversed.

Legal Issue(s)

EMB Operation

Applicable Law(s): Elect. Comm'n Act 16(2); Elect. Comm'n Act 15(5); Elect. Comm'n Act 51.

Region: Africa

Country: South Africa

Language of Decision

English

Court: Electoral Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Apr 29, 2019

Geolocation

Latitude: -33.87375177

Longitude: 18.6816943

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Freedom Front Plus v. Electoral Commission of South Africa.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Freedom Front Plus v. Electoral Commission of South Africa

Primary Documents

Notifications