ActionSA welcomes the Electoral Court’s judgement handed down today against the DA’s case which sought to disqualify ActionSA from supplementing its PR lists, based on unfounded allegations around “transparency” and the opportunistic reading of matters into law.
The Electoral Court’s decision represents a resounding rejection of:
• The DA’s request for a declaration that ActionSA’s submission of a single-name PR list was unlawful and unconstitutional;
• The DA’s contention that the submission of single-name PR lists violated the Municipal Electoral Act and applicable electoral legislation; and
• The DA’s allegations that the submission of the PR lists was undertaken in bad faith and in fraudem legis.
The Electoral Court also rejected the DA’s requests to:
• Compel the IEC to declare ActionSA’s PR list invalid;
• Prohibit ActionSA from supplementing its PR list after the elections; and
• Restrict the supplementation of PR lists until after the first sitting of the municipal council.
In short, the DA obtained none of the substantive relief that the Court determined.
It was clear from its genesis that this case was stillborn, comically hypocritical, and anti-democratic in its tendencies.
Comically hypocritical, because the DA itself had submitted single name PR lists in at least 13 municipalities for the 2026 elections, and because the party had, with no seeming self-awareness, benefitted from list supplementation since ab initio.
Anti-democratic, as granting the DA’s prayers would have disenfranchised 25% of the South African electorate from being represented in councils.
This is nothing to mention of the DA’s flawed argument around transparency. It presents a flawed critique of ActionSA for “hiding” its PR lists and centralising decision making, whilst its FedEx parachutes self-confessed sextorters of schoolgirls and doctors with bogus qualifications onto its lists.
The benefit to the DA, should its prayers be allowed, was clear, and shows that this case was never truly about the public interest. It would have effectively nullified the votes of South Africans the DA knew it could not win over, and councils would have elected mayors into office without the voices of South Africans who braved the lines to cast their ballots.
Rather, the case revealed a DA which has gone into retreat. Across South Africa, and especially in Tshwane where ActionSA leads government, the idea that the DA is the only party that can govern is unraveling. In metros where the DA governs, voters have come to see that the DA delivers only to its constituents, whilst running sewage, piling garbage, and potholes dot townships and informal settlements. ActionSA has proven that voters no longer face a false binary of deliver to some or to none.
ActionSA welcomes this misguided case effectively being put out of its misery, and focuses its attention on turning out en masse the very voters the DA has sought to silence.
ActionSA Welcomes Electoral Court Striking Down DA Effort To Disenfranchise Voters
ActionSA welcomes the Electoral Court’s judgement handed down today against the DA’s case which sought to disqualify ActionSA from supplementing its PR lists, based on unfounded allegations around “transparency” and the opportunistic reading of matters into law.
The Electoral Court’s decision represents a resounding rejection of:
• The DA’s request for a declaration that ActionSA’s submission of a single-name PR list was unlawful and unconstitutional;
• The DA’s contention that the submission of single-name PR lists violated the Municipal Electoral Act and applicable electoral legislation; and
• The DA’s allegations that the submission of the PR lists was undertaken in bad faith and in fraudem legis.
The Electoral Court also rejected the DA’s requests to:
• Compel the IEC to declare ActionSA’s PR list invalid;
• Prohibit ActionSA from supplementing its PR list after the elections; and
• Restrict the supplementation of PR lists until after the first sitting of the municipal council.
In short, the DA obtained none of the substantive relief that the Court determined.
It was clear from its genesis that this case was stillborn, comically hypocritical, and anti-democratic in its tendencies.
Comically hypocritical, because the DA itself had submitted single name PR lists in at least 13 municipalities for the 2026 elections, and because the party had, with no seeming self-awareness, benefitted from list supplementation since ab initio.
Anti-democratic, as granting the DA’s prayers would have disenfranchised 25% of the South African electorate from being represented in councils.
This is nothing to mention of the DA’s flawed argument around transparency. It presents a flawed critique of ActionSA for “hiding” its PR lists and centralising decision making, whilst its FedEx parachutes self-confessed sextorters of schoolgirls and doctors with bogus qualifications onto its lists.
The benefit to the DA, should its prayers be allowed, was clear, and shows that this case was never truly about the public interest. It would have effectively nullified the votes of South Africans the DA knew it could not win over, and councils would have elected mayors into office without the voices of South Africans who braved the lines to cast their ballots.
Rather, the case revealed a DA which has gone into retreat. Across South Africa, and especially in Tshwane where ActionSA leads government, the idea that the DA is the only party that can govern is unraveling. In metros where the DA governs, voters have come to see that the DA delivers only to its constituents, whilst running sewage, piling garbage, and potholes dot townships and informal settlements. ActionSA has proven that voters no longer face a false binary of deliver to some or to none.
ActionSA welcomes this misguided case effectively being put out of its misery, and focuses its attention on turning out en masse the very voters the DA has sought to silence.