South Africa’s Christian And Muslim Political Parties Highlight Voting Irregularities
JOHANNESBURG — Over 20 political parties, including Muslim and Christian ones, joined in their objection to the announced results of South Africa’s national elections held last week, citing a myriad of voting irregularities.
The African National Congress obtained 159 seats, Democratic Alliance 87 and uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK) 58.
According to the objecting parties, the identified irregularities were more serious widespread systemic deficiencies and undermined votes cast by millions of South Africans. The parties said they require a recount of votes, while others requested a reelection. Due to the discrepancies, they believed their constitutional rights to a free and fair election was breached.
READ: Prominent Pastor Accuses South African President Of Vote-Buying Scheme
The parties said there were more than 500 objections that were allegedly lodged with the country’s Electoral Commission (IEC) and believed “the rush” to declare the results was premature as they had until Wednesday, seven days after the vote, to do so.
Key to the concerns were alleged discrepancies and mismatches of the ballots captured at voting stations and on the IEC’s screen. Some of the objections, the parties said, were propelled by the outcry of their constituencies who confirmed they voted for them. However, to their surprise, in specific polling stations where they voted for the aggrieved parties, the figures showed zero on the IEC results portal. Ordinary South Africans and members of different political parties took to social media to show photos and videos of what they deemed as “irregular and fraudulent.”
In a joint letter addressed to the commissioners dated May 31, the parties cited their urgent objections in terms of Section 55 of the Electoral Act 73 of 1998. According to Section 55 (3) of the Act, “the Commission on good cause shown, may condone a late objection.”
Their urgent objections, they said, were combined with a request for the condonation pertaining to the 9 p.m. deadline set on May 31, which is prescribed in Section 55 (2) of the act. They said the deadline was too short; therefore, based on the number of discrepancies with the voting, they needed time to compile their evidence and submit it to the IEC.
The parties wrote, "We hereby submit that numerous inconsistencies have been raised at various Party Liaison Committees meetings during the course of the election which have not been responded to. Various discrepancies are still being identified due to inefficiencies at voting station level. We therefore hereby request condonation in terms of the above act in order to finalize discrepancies that have and are being raised presently. We also herewith wish to bring to the attention of the IEC the utmost seriousness of the number and nature of the discrepancies which we believe are to such an extent that if not addressed, could influence the freeness and fairness of the elections. We therefore implore you to grant the condonation as requested.”
The IEC extended the date to 6 p.m. on June 1, stating it would look into the objections. The parties requested the deadline to be extended to 10:30 p.m. on the same day to prepare and submit what they considered “enormous volume of evidence, as a consequence of the deficiencies with the election vote.”
Section 57 (2, a, and b) provides that “the determination and declaration of the result of an election must occur within seven days after the voting day, but not sooner than 21:00 of the second day after the voting day or before all objections made under section 55 have been dealt with in terms of that section, other than an appeal of the Electoral Court in terms of subsection 5 of that act.”
Section 4 states that “If the Commission is unable to determine and declare the result of an election within the seven-day period required by subsection (2) (c), the Commission must apply to the Electoral Court for an extension of that period.” Section 5 states that the Electoral Court, on good cause shown, may extend the period within which the Commission must determine and declare the results of the election.”
On June 1, IEC Chairperson Mosotho Moepya said every objection raised will be considered.
“We are going to look at the issues that are brought before us and we are going to consider them in the process of assuring the integrity of these elections,” Moepya said.
The results were released on June 2, the fourth day after voting took place.
Addressing the crowd outside the Johannesburg High Court on Tuesday, former President Jacob Zuma and MK leader said the IEC rushed to announce the votes and ignored their objections. He said the IEC stole MK’s votes and gave them to the ANC, the DA and other parties.
“We are here to open a case against the IEC because they broke the law that they are supposed to uphold. We have strong evidence against them, they are in trouble. We are going to parliament. But we cannot go with few members,” Zuma said. “Do not fight against them, do not burn anything. We want our people to stop suffering.”
Similar to all objecting parties, African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) President Reverend Kenneth Meshoe was concerned the results were released “before the objections were heard.”
The ACDP requested a recount, and its National Executive Committee has appointed an accomplished independent elections analyst to spearhead their objections to IEC in respect of the results.
The secretary general of the National Coloured Congress, Sakeena Frenchman, said, “With all the complaints that we submitted to the IEC as proof, how can the IEC still deny us a recount? How is that a democracy? We know that we have beaten the DA in the few wards. On the screen it showed that we had about 47,000 votes, but when the IEC emailed us the results, we were at 45,000. The IEC has called it free and fair elections. We know that it hasn’t been fair.”
Muzi Ntshingila of MK told reporters, “No party agents were allowed to oversee the process of capturing. That is where most discrepancies, acts of corruption and criminality took place.”
President Ganief Hendricks of AL-JAMAH, a Muslim party that alleged the DA stole its votes, said although it is not interested in challenging Parliament, “this happens in every election, but this time there are more than 500 objections. People have opened cases. We have lodged about 17 complaints relating to 17 voting stations and that translates to 5,000 votes.”
AL-JAMAH’s matter was resolved by the IEC.
Sizwe Ummah Nation (SUN), a party formed by a Muslim, Rasheed Ebrahim, requested a reelection.
SUN spokesperson Phathiwe Ndleleni, said: “We had objections, but they went ahead and announced the results. There is no fear of God in the IEC and the ruling party. God left the ANC a long time ago. That is why they do as they please.”
African Restoration Alliance protested and said it has legal action against the IEC and DA. ARA leader Jeremo Swartz announced on social media that “we do not accept these results in the provinces. The DA and IEC have acted as gods unto themselves by stealing votes and rigging the elections. We will fight and expose these people. We will not accept a DA rule.”
DA spokesman Solly Malatsi said: “Parties do not want to accept the will of the vote of the people of the Western Cape who have voted the DA in their overwhelming majority. It is very clear that these are parties that only respect democracy when it only favors them and when it does not favor them, they make some fictional stories.”
Approached for comment, ANC spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri requested that Religion Unplugged send questions in writing. ANC did not immediately provide comment.
Vicky Abraham is an investigative journalist based in South Africa and has reported for the Mail & Guardian, City Press, Assist News, the Nation newspaper in Nigeria and Nation Media Group in Kenya.