Previous 11 / 28 Next

11 student at the Northwest University he responded to a call by the South African National Defence Force and enlisted. He did various training courses in his spare time during weekends and holidays. After a further period of three months training he served the country for four months in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. g) After he completed his military service he returned to the Northwest University and obtained the B.Ed degree in December 2006. h) For no other reason than “wanderlust” and in an attempt to further educate himself (in the widest sense of the word) he decided upon international exposure before commencing his career as a teacher in South Africa and he accepted a temporary post as a teacher in the United Kingdom. i) 2009 would be his last year in the United Kingdom and he intended returning to the Republic of South Africa at the end of 2009. [19] Regarding urgency he stated that on the 22nd November 2008 the second respondent communicated to the South African Press Association that the second respondent was considering a request from a leader of a political party in South Africa to allow people like himself to vote in the upcoming elections. As a follow-up to that he, during December 2008, instructed his mother to instruct a legal representative to enquire regarding his right to a special vote. [20] On 26 December 2008 he was informed that he would not be able to vote if he was employed on the strength of a work permit in the United Kingdom. He stated that a work permit does not have any function other than regulating the work force of the United Kingdom and that one may not work in the United Kingdom unless one has a work permit alternatively unless you were on government service of some or other foreign government. [21] On the 19th January 2009, not accepting that he would not be able to vote by means of a special vote, he, through his attorney, addressed a letter to the principal election officer of the first respondent so as to enquire regarding the procedure to follow should he wish to vote.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Richter v. Minister of Home Affairs

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether Section 33(1)(b) and Section 33(1)(e) of the Electoral Act 73 of 1998 — which limited the "special vote" to South African citizens absent from the Republic only if they were on "government service" (or members of the household of such persons), while effectively excluding all other citizens living or working abroad — unjustifiably limited the constitutional right to vote under Section 19(3)(a) of the Constitution, read with the rights to equality (Section 9(1)), human dignity (Section 10), and equal citizenship (Section 3(2)(a)).

Alleged Acts: The applicant, Willem Stephanus Richter, was a South African citizen who was working abroad. He was a registered voter in South Africa but would be outside the country on the day of the national and provincial elections scheduled for April 22, 2009. Richter wished to vote but was unable to return to South Africa for that purpose. Under Section 33 of the Electoral Act 73 of 1998, "special votes" were available only to narrowly defined categories of voters who could not vote at their designated polling stations on election day. Critically, Section 33(1)(e) — the catch-all provision for persons absent from the Republic — was interpreted by the Electoral Commission as not extending to ordinary South African citizens living or working abroad who were not on government service. This meant that citizens like Richter, who were abroad for private employment or other personal reasons, were effectively denied the ability to cast any vote — whether in person or by special vote.

Procedural history: Richter applied to the Gauteng Provincial Division (Pretoria) for an order declaring Section 33(1)(b) and Section 33(1)(e) of the Electoral Act unconstitutional, as well as certain related regulations. The Democratic Alliance and another party intervened in the proceedings. On February 9, 2009, Ebersohn AJ found in favour of Richter and declared sections 33(1)(b) and 33(1)(e) of the Electoral Act unconstitutional, along with certain related regulations. The court held these provisions were in conflict with sections 3(2)(a) (right to equality before the law), 9(1) (equality), 10 (human dignity), and 19(3)(a) (right to vote) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

Summary: South African plaintiff, Ritcher, argued statutory restrictions on right to vote violated constitutionalized fundamental right to vote.

Conclusion: The court declared the following parts of Section 33 to be in conflict with sections 3(2)(a), 9(1), 10 and 19(3)(a) of the Constitution and thus invalid, and ordered that the special vote provisions be read to extend to all registered South African voters who are absent from the Republic on election day.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility

Applicable Law(s): Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Electoral Act of 1973, and Electoral Regulations

Region: Africa

Country: South Africa

Language of Decision

English

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Feb 9, 2009

Geolocation

Latitude: -26.1865

Longitude: 28.0393

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPHC/2009/21.pdf

Primary Documents

Richter v. Minister of Home Affairs.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Richter v. Minister of Home Affairs

Primary Documents

Notifications