Diamond v African National Congress

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Masipa J, Mthiyane JA, Pillay J, Ms S Moodley (member) and Ms S Abro (member)
• Court: Electoral Court
• Citation: 2011 JDR 0052 (EC)
• Docket Number: EC008/06

Masipa J:

[1]

The four appellants were unsuccessful candidates in the Municipal Elections held on 1 March 2006. In their respective wards each of the appellants lost by a huge margin as follows:

'Ward 43
Mr JS Diamond, the first appellant,	273 votes
The Winning Candidate	3 430 votes
Ward 40
Mr IE Keikelame, the second appellant,	698 votes
The Winning Candidate	2 030 votes
Ward 42
Mr TA Mafereka, the third appellant,	845 votes
The Winning Candidate	2 784 votes
Ward 41
Mr KW Meshoane, the fourth appellant,	519 votes
The Winning Candidate	2 784 votes'

[2]

On 3 March 2006 the appellants lodged an objection to the election claiming that it had not been 'free and fair'. The letters from the individual objectors embodying the complaints were similarly structured and I shall for convenience deal with them collectively. The aspects complained of were the following:

'(a)

On 16 February 2006 permission to hold a MASS RALLY organised by all independent candidates on February 2007 in Wards 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 at Selosesha Stadium was withdrawn at short notice by the local authority.

(b)

Certain ANC members made statements discrediting the applicants in the eyes of the public, e.g. that the applicants would not be able to deliver on their promises as they did not have the funds to do so.

(c)

The ruling party made false statements to the effect that in Selosesha and Unit 1 title deeds would be issued to members of the community. In fact "there was

2011 JDR 0052 p3

Masipa J

no handing over of the title deeds to the residents of Selosesha and Unit one. But instead the few residents were given Deed of Transfer prepared by Spuhnan Attorneys'.

(d)

Some members of the ANC and ANC agents had free access to the voting station on 1 March 2006; they canvassed the votes from people who were in the queue waiting for their turn to vote. Some people, including presiding officers, spoke freely on their cell phones inside the voting station when they should have switched them off.

(e)

Certain members of the ANC provided transport to the voting station to old age pensioners and told them to vote ANC or they would lose their pension moneys.

(f)

Certain IEC officials either refused to assist voters who were not conversant with voting procedure or were biased in favour of the ANC. Presiding officers failed to do their jobs properly and ANC party agents in the voting stations concerned exceeded the numbers that was permitted; ANC councillors entered voting stations during the counting of votes.

(g)

Some ANC members bought food for IEC officials during the election. One of the appellants complained that on 29 January 2006 ANC members dressed in ANC T-shirt disrupted a meeting that he had called.'

[3]

Annexed to the letter of objection were various other letters and affidavits from individuals who claimed to have been at various voting stations at the relevant time. A common feature of the issues raised in these annexures is that, rather than confirm the allegations made by the appellants they supplement them by raising additional complaints. The complaints are inelegantly set out in a language that is sometimes difficult to follow. The content as well as the manner of presentation makes it difficult to link the annexures to the objection. It is also clear from the dates of the annexures viz, 7 March 2006, that the said annexures could not have been attached to the objections and therefore...