On May 10, the Constitutional Court will hear an application by the electoral commission seeking clarity on former president Jacob Zuma’s eligibility to stand for election in the upcoming general elections.
Zuma’s candidacy for parliament has been the subject of much debate in recent months, since he launched his MK Party in December last year.
Apart from his supporters, it was widely believed that Zuma was ineligible for election on the basis of his criminal conviction, for contempt, and 15-month sentence imposed by the constitutional court.
Two weeks ago the electoral court set aside the decision by the IEC to bar him from contesting and on Friday, it finally released its reasons.
The court dismissed all assertions by Zuma’s MK Party, including its claim of bias on the part of the IEC commissioner Janet Love.
It dismissed any question about the legitimacy of his criminal conviction and affirmed that the remission of his sentence to an effective three months can not be interpreted as a reduction of his criminal liability.
Yet, bizarrely, the court then argued that because Zuma could not appeal his sentence imposed by the highest court in the land, then the sentence cannot be interpreted as that which is envisaged by section Section 47(1)(e) of the constitution.
Simply put, the inability to appeal a sentence – as it was in Zuma’s case – effectively means it cannot be regarded as a sentence in terms of the electoral act.
As many legal commentators have pointed out, this reading of the law appears to be flawed as it suggests that only sentences imposed by lower courts can be regarded as final sentences after an appeal process has been completed.
This interpretation of the law suggests that no person convicted and sentenced by the apex court can be regarded as being sentenced in terms of the electoral law because the provision to appeal such as sentence does not exist.
It is unclear how the Constitutional Court can accept this interpretation as correct as it means its own powers to act as a court of first and last instance, as it was in Zuma’s case, have been undermined.
As stated in this publication before, the importance of this case cannot be emphasised enough – not because of Zuma, but to help understand and correctly interpret our constitution.
SOWETAN | Court reasons clear as mud
Image: SANDILE NDLOVU
On May 10, the Constitutional Court will hear an application by the electoral commission seeking clarity on former president Jacob Zuma’s eligibility to stand for election in the upcoming general elections.
Zuma’s candidacy for parliament has been the subject of much debate in recent months, since he launched his MK Party in December last year.
Apart from his supporters, it was widely believed that Zuma was ineligible for election on the basis of his criminal conviction, for contempt, and 15-month sentence imposed by the constitutional court.
Two weeks ago the electoral court set aside the decision by the IEC to bar him from contesting and on Friday, it finally released its reasons.
The court dismissed all assertions by Zuma’s MK Party, including its claim of bias on the part of the IEC commissioner Janet Love.
It dismissed any question about the legitimacy of his criminal conviction and affirmed that the remission of his sentence to an effective three months can not be interpreted as a reduction of his criminal liability.
Yet, bizarrely, the court then argued that because Zuma could not appeal his sentence imposed by the highest court in the land, then the sentence cannot be interpreted as that which is envisaged by section Section 47(1)(e) of the constitution.
Simply put, the inability to appeal a sentence – as it was in Zuma’s case – effectively means it cannot be regarded as a sentence in terms of the electoral act.
As many legal commentators have pointed out, this reading of the law appears to be flawed as it suggests that only sentences imposed by lower courts can be regarded as final sentences after an appeal process has been completed.
This interpretation of the law suggests that no person convicted and sentenced by the apex court can be regarded as being sentenced in terms of the electoral law because the provision to appeal such as sentence does not exist.
It is unclear how the Constitutional Court can accept this interpretation as correct as it means its own powers to act as a court of first and last instance, as it was in Zuma’s case, have been undermined.
As stated in this publication before, the importance of this case cannot be emphasised enough – not because of Zuma, but to help understand and correctly interpret our constitution.
SOWETAN | Vahluri one of the good stories to tell
SOWETAN | We have much to celebrate
SOWETAN | Shed thugs in women football
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Related articles
Latest Videos