PRETORIA, Gauteng — The African National Congress (ANC) has filed urgent papers with the Electoral Court to challenge the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC) decision in a high-stakes candidate registration dispute. The party is contesting the rejection of its candidates in six municipalities across KwaZulu-Natal, the Eastern Cape, and the Free State. According to Elections Analyst Michael Atkins, the ANC now faces a strict burden of proof to demonstrate that its nominations were lawfully submitted despite alleged technical glitches ahead of the local government elections scheduled for 4 November 2026.
The ANC is requesting the Electoral Court to set aside the IEC’s decision. The party’s legal papers argue that the IEC should be directed to treat the ANC’s party list and ward candidate nominations as having been timelessly, lawfully, and validly submitted in accordance with Sections 14 and 17 of the Municipal Electoral Act. The ultimate objective is to have these nominations officially included on the ballot. The ANC attributes the registration failure to technical glitches within the IEC’s system, a claim the electoral body has already publicly dismissed.
Providing expert context on the candidate registration dispute, Elections Analyst Michael Atkins highlighted that while the ANC cannot ask for special favors or extra time, it can argue that it fully complied with the law. According to Atkins, the ANC’s legal strategy will likely follow one of two routes: challenging the legal definition of the word “submitted” (and related terms like “uploaded”), or proving that the party followed all IEC system processes, but a technical failure on the IEC’s end prevented the actions from being captured or recorded.
Atkins pointed out that this is not the first time the ANC has approached the court over similar submission failures, noting that the electoral court previously found in the party’s favor in a comparable incident. However, the strength of the ANC’s current case may hinge on broader evidence. Atkins explained that the ANC’s position would be significantly strengthened if other political parties or candidates experienced similar system glitches during the submission window. Currently, it appears the ANC is the only entity to have reported such issues in this instance.
Addressing whether a bad internet connection or an internal ANC network error would suffice as a legal defense, Atkins was direct. He emphasized that the law requires submissions to be completed. He offered a practical analogy: if a person carrying nomination papers trips over a curb 10 meters from the IEC’s door and misses the deadline, the submission has legally failed. Conversely, if the ANC handed its digital “envelope” to the IEC’s “receptionist” (the system) and the IEC failed to process it, the ANC would have fulfilled its legal obligation, shifting the fault to the commission.
The political stakes of this candidate registration dispute are high, with reports indicating that approximately 150 names are missing from the submissions. Atkins warned that if the ANC submitted zero names for a municipal proportional representation (PR) list, the party would be entirely absent from the ballot in that area—a scenario he described as a “disaster.” Furthermore, every ward candidate without a valid nomination represents a lost opportunity to win that ward and a loss of those crucial votes in the overall PR calculations. He did note a slight procedural mitigation: under the Municipal Structures Act, if a party submits some names (e.g., five) but is awarded more seats (e.g., 20), they retain the opportunity to fill the remaining seats after the fact, unlike in national elections.
When asked if an ANC victory in this matter might set a dangerous precedent, encouraging parties to treat the IEC’s strict deadlines as mere suggestions rather than serious determinations, Atkins expressed no concern. He stated that approaching the court is the fundamental right of the ANC and any other political party. He concluded that the matter is straightforward and that the courts will appropriately decide the case based strictly on its legal merits.
