Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
It started with a missed click. On August 28, with the 5pm deadline looming, the African National Congress uploaded the details of 181 councillor candidates onto the Electoral Commission of South Africa’s online platform — paid the required deposits, entered every name — but never hit the final submit button. That single omission would spiral into one of the most consequential electoral disputes South Africa has seen ahead of its November 4 local government elections.
The Electoral Commission of SA, widely known as the IEC, was uncompromising. Without the final submission step being completed on the system, the nominations were invalid. Six municipalities found themselves staring down an ANC absence: Port St Johns, Ngquza Hill, Walter Sisulu and Sundays River Valley in the Eastern Cape, Mangaung in the Free State, and uMshwathi in KwaZulu-Natal. In Port St Johns and Ngquza Hill, the situation was even starker — the ANC would have no candidates on the ballot at all.
The party pushed back immediately, challenging the IEC’s decision through the courts. But on September 16, the Electoral Court sided with the commission, upholding its rejection of the 181 candidates and affirming that electoral rules exist precisely to be followed. For the ANC, that ruling was not the end of the road.
Weeks later, the fight landed at the highest level. The ANC brought its appeal to the Constitutional Court, South Africa’s apex court, where on Monday it made its case before a bench led by Justice Mlambo and including Justices Mathopo, Mhlantla, Dambuza-Mayosi, Theron, Le Grange, Savage and Acting Justice Lister Nuku.
The argument the ANC brought was, at its core, about intent. Advocate Daniel Berger SC, representing the party, contended that by uploading the candidates’ details and paying the deposits, the ANC had already demonstrated its clear intention to field those 181 individuals. The technicality of not clicking “submit as final,” he argued, should not erase that intent.
Then came the comparison that will likely define how people remember this hearing.
When a justice asked from the bench how the IEC could possibly distinguish between a list that was still a work-in-progress and one that was genuinely final but simply never marked as such, Berger reached for an analogy. “I’m sure if I was at university and I submitted a draft essay to my lecturer and said ‘I’m coming back, I’m going to make changes’ and the deadline passes, the lecturer wouldn’t refuse to assess my essay,” he told the court. His point was direct: once the deadline passed, no changes could be made to the lists on the system anyway, making them effectively final by default.
The party was equally careful to frame its appeal not as a request for special treatment. It stated explicitly that it was not seeking any indulgence from the Constitutional Court — only that candidates already captured on the IEC’s own electronic system be given the opportunity to contest the elections.
The IEC, for its part, held firm. Capturing and uploading candidates’ details, the commission argued, does not satisfy the regulatory requirements for a valid online submission. Beyond the technical point, the IEC made a broader democratic argument: the right to political participation is protected precisely when parties comply with deadlines and electoral requirements, not when those requirements are bent after the fact.
The Democratic Alliance, which had intervened in the Electoral Court proceedings, stood firmly behind the IEC’s position at this stage too. With the DA’s backing reinforcing the commission’s stance, the ANC faced a formidable coalition of opposition in the courtroom.
By the time Monday’s hearing concluded, the Constitutional Court had not yet handed down its ruling. For the communities of Port St Johns, Ngquza Hill and the other affected municipalities, the wait continues — with November 4 drawing closer and the question of who will appear on their ballots still unresolved.
