CASAC reiterates stance that Electoral Court erred in Zuma candidacy admission
In its written submissions to the Constitutional Court on Monday, the council argued that the Electoral Court afforded the Parole Board, rather than only the president, powers to undo all consequences of a court’s determination of a conviction and sentence.
- Jacob Zuma
- Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC)
- Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC)
FILE: Former President Jacob Zuma at the Shekainah Healing Ministries Prophetic Pillowcase service in Phillipi, near Cape Town, on March 10, 2024. Picture: GIANLUIGI GUERCIA / AFP
JOHANNESBURG - The Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC) maintains that the Electoral Court’s findings on whether former President Jacob Zuma can run as a candidate ahead of the elections harm the separation of powers.
In its written submissions to the Constitutional Court on Monday, CASAC argued that the Electoral Court afforded the Parole Board, rather than only the president, powers to undo all consequences of a court’s determination of a conviction and sentence.
ALSO READ:
- Zuma vs IEC: Legal experts believes in likelihood of ConCourt ruling against Electoral Court
- CASAC says Zuma vs IEC case has implications on law and separation of powers
CASAC, along with Corruption Watch and the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation have been admitted as friends of the court in the matter between the Independent Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) and Zuma’s uMkhonto weSizwe Party.
The IEC approached the apex court seeking clarity after the Electoral Court overturned an objection to Zuma being a candidate for a seat in the National Assembly in the upcoming general elections.
CASAC maintains the Electoral Court erred when handing down both its order and subsequent judgment in the Zuma matter, arguing that a remission did not reduce the sentence imposed by a court.
Meanwhile, the IEC warned of a substantial risk of a disputed outcome if Zuma was allowed to stand, while the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation described the former president as a constitutional delinquent who did not deserve to serve in Parliament.
The apex court is set to hear the matter on Friday.