Election Bill has serious flaws, warn Experts

While MPs serving on the portfolio committee on home affairs, on Tuesday appeared to have adopted the motion of desirability on the Electoral Amendment Bill, two leading experts have punched holes in the parliamentary process, maintaining it has some serious constitutional flaws.

The Bill is aimed at paving the way for the inclusion of independent candidates to contest national and provincial polls.

The Constitutional Court in 2020 gave parliament two years to amend the Electoral Act, but experts have warned that the apex court deadline is far from being realised, especially considering that the committee has applied for a six months extension.

ALSO READ: ‘New Electoral Act could just be a sneaky way to steal power’ from voters

The motion of desirability amendments includes:

• Requirements and qualifications which should be met by people wishing to be registered as independent candidates.
• Procedure to be followed for a noncompliant nomination of an independent candidate.
• Inspection of copies of lists of independent candidates and accompanying documents.
• Process to be followed in objecting to independent candidates.
• Independent candidates to be bound by the Electoral Code of Conduct.

University of South Africa political science Prof Dirk Kotze and Institute of Race Relations analyst Marius Roodt cautioned against any overhaul of the country’s electoral system in an improper manner and not taking into account every public concern.

Kotze, who made a contribution during public hearings on how best to amend the Electoral Act, said: “The committee was supposed to have concluded the process by this month to meet the Constitutional Court deadline.

“Now, there is an extension applied for until December showing that there is no agreement or consensus reached by the portfolio committee on the matter, because there are serious problems in this proposed legislation.

ALSO READ: Parliament to proceed with Electoral Amendment Bill as deadline edges closer

“Although I made a submission to the committee, it seems that has not been recognised.

“There are some matters which are unconstitutional in the proposed legislative changes.

“The more independent candidates there are, the less they will be able to meet the principle of proportional representation – falling below the benchmark to be accepted by the Constitutional Court.

“The court itself did not address the practical implications of the judgment and made proposals which are practically unworkable.

“The judgment only focused on Section 19 of the constitution, which is about political rights, and did not take into account the matter of proportionality.”