IEC Answering Affidavit Paints Damning Image Of Electoral Court Case

ActionSA welcomes the IEC’s answering affidavit filed in opposition to the DA’s Electoral Court challenge, which we believe affirms the perspective that it is opportunistic, hypocritical, and frivolous.

The IEC states in its affidavit that it elects not to choose a side in this dispute. That is accepted, but it is our view that the affidavit paints a damning picture of the DA’s misguided case. Rather than re-hashing our previous position on the matter, we have provided a 5 quotations lifted from the IEC’s papers that speak for itself:

Paragraph 13:

The Commission is firmly of the view that the DA’s case is without merit in law. Many of the arguments made by the DA are factually opportunistic and legally specious. What is more, the application was brought on 21 September 2026, weeks before voting day, after nominations had closed and the lists had been certified, against a practice that parties, including the DA, have followed openly in successive local government elections. The relief it seeks would be seriously disruptive, and would put the integrity of these elections at risk.

Paragraph 75:

The submission of lists containing a single name, and the supplementation of lists that prove insufficient, did not arise for the first time in these elections. The DA itself submitted lists containing a single name in twelve municipalities in for the LGE 2026.

Paragraph 85:

The DA itself accepts that a party may lawfully submit a list containing one candidate.

Paragraph 171:

I emphasise that the relief sought would be seriously disruptive. Weeks before voting day, it would either exclude from the proportional representation ballot paper parties that together received more than a quarter of the national vote in 2024, or change the rules by which seats are allocated after the votes have been cast. 

Paragraph 202:

I emphasise that the constraints under which the Commission, and the other respondents, have had to answer are the product of the timing of the application. The DA chose to launch it weeks before voting day, at a time when the Commission’s resources are committed to the conduct of the elections.

This is precisely why ActionSA has asked the courts to make a punitive costs order against the DA because their entire court application is cynical, makes unsubstantiated leaps of logic and law, and is a waste of time for political parties, the IEC and the courts – all of whom have better used of their time with a month to go to the elections. Moreover, the DA’s application is morally bankrupt, seeking that the seats of a group of parties that constitute over 25% of the South African electorate should not be awarded to those parties, or that governments should be formed in their absence. What kind of political party openly advocates for a departure from the cornerstone of our electoral democracy – that councils should reflect the will of the South African people.

The DA’s claim that this is about transparency is being laid bare. It has already been demonstrated that ActionSA’s PR lists are comprise of ward candidates, ranked in order of performance, giving power to the South African people to shape these lists based on their perspectives on the merit of our candidates. When compared to the smoke-filled rooms of the DA Fedex that has returned a self-confessed sextorter of a schoolgirl to the 2^nd position on the Garden Route District List, I would venture our system has greater safeguards.

ActionSA looks forward to this matter being ventilated in court where the South African people will have a front row seat to viewing the true nature of the DA as a crucial moment before these elections.

ActionSA Strategic Focus: Targeting the “non-voter” and disillusioned middle class.