A challenge centred on voter choice
The African National Congress has taken its candidate-list dispute with the Electoral Commission of South Africa to the Electoral Court, placing the rights of voters at the centre of a case that could affect 2 274 candidates from 45 political parties.
The ANC is challenging the IEC’s refusal to accept candidate lists in six municipalities after names had been captured on the Commission’s online system before the 17H00 deadline on 28 August, but the final electronic submission was not completed.
The party maintains that the lists were submitted in substance and that technical problems prevented the final step from being completed. The IEC has disputed the claim that its system was not functioning and has said the affected names were captured but not finally submitted by the deadline. [1][2]
The legal question is now before the Electoral Court.
The ANC’s position is that the court must determine whether the candidate information already captured before the deadline should be recognised as a valid submission and whether a remedy should be applied equally to every party affected by the same circumstances.
This is not a request for an electoral favour. It is a challenge to the exclusion of candidates from the ballot and a defence of the voter’s right to choose among the widest lawful range of candidates.
The facts before the court
The ANC says its candidate names were submitted “timeously and validly” and that a technical glitch affected the final stage of the electronic process. [6]
The party says 181 of its candidates are affected in six municipalities. It further says the IEC identified 2 274 affected candidates from 45 political parties, with 44 of those parties being parties other than the ANC. [3][2]
The affected municipalities are Mangaung, uMshwathi, Walter Sisulu, Sundays River Valley, Ngquza Hill and Port St Johns, according to reporting on the case. [7]
The ANC has asked the Electoral Court to decide whether the lists should be regarded as having been submitted before the deadline. Alternatively, it wants any available remedy to apply to every party whose candidates were captured before the cut-off but not finally processed.
The party is not asking the court to remove a single DA candidate from the ballot.
Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula has made that point repeatedly.
“Nothing the ANC asks for takes a single DA candidate off any ballot,” Mbalula said. “What the DA asks for takes 2 274, and 44 of the 45 parties they belong to are not the ANC.” [3][3]
That is the central distinction in the ANC’s case.
The party is asking for a legal determination on the status of the submissions. It is not asking for permission to exclude its competitors.
The scale of the dispute
ANC candidates affected across six councils: 130 PR and 51 ward nominations, according to the party.
The wider number of candidates and political parties cited by Mbalula. This total includes the ANC’s 181 candidates.
Candidates reported as registered nationally: 4 366 ward and 4 581 PR candidates. The larger 9 128 figure refers to the ANC’s national slate.
The court will determine the law.
The people must determine the election.
Why the ANC opposes the DA’s intervention
The DA has applied to intervene in the ANC’s Electoral Court case and has argued that the 17H00 deadline applied equally to all parties. It says the ANC uploaded its candidates but did not submit the lists as final. [3][4]
The DA’s public position is that “deadlines are deadlines” and that accepting the ANC’s lists after the cut-off would undermine fairness between political parties. [4]
The ANC rejects the DA’s intervention because the case is against a decision taken by the IEC, not against the DA.
The electoral body is already defending its decision. The ANC therefore says the DA has no separate legal interest that requires protection and no additional role to play in a dispute that could affect candidates from 45 political parties.
That is a powerful objection.
The DA is not the body that administered the nomination system. It did not make the decision under challenge. It is not responsible for deciding whether the candidate information captured on the IEC platform amounted to a submission.
Those questions belong before the IEC and the Electoral Court. Whether the DA meets the legal requirements to intervene is also for the court to determine; the ANC’s objection is an argument in the case, not a finding already made. [3][4]
The DA’s intervention has nonetheless placed it directly on the opposite side of the ANC’s attempt to restore the affected candidates. Mbalula argues that the DA’s position would preserve the exclusion of the wider group of 2 274 candidates. The extent to which the outcome of this application would affect every other party will depend on the court’s order and the circumstances of their submissions. [2][3]
The ANC is right to ask why the DA is seeking to participate in a matter that does not remove any of its candidates, while potentially affecting candidates from dozens of other parties.
The issue is bigger than the ANC
The ANC’s case has been framed around a broader democratic principle.
In a local election, voters must have a meaningful opportunity to choose their representatives. Candidates should not be excluded from the ballot without a clear determination that they failed to comply with the law, particularly when the dispute involves a digital system and affects parties across the political spectrum.
The ANC accepts that electoral deadlines matter. It is not asking the court to abolish the deadline or allow parties to submit lists whenever they choose.
Its argument is that the court must examine what actually happened before 17H00 on 28 August.
Candidate information had been captured. The question is whether that process was sufficiently complete to constitute a submission, or whether the final electronic confirmation alone determines validity.
That question cannot be answered by political slogans.
It requires the court to examine the IEC system, the electronic records, the information available to party administrators and the circumstances surrounding the failure to complete the final step.
The ANC has taken the proper route by asking the Electoral Court to make that determination.
Ramaphosa’s position
ANC President Cyril Ramaphosa previously described the problem as a technical glitch affecting the interface with the IEC system.
“There were some glitches, glitches with regard to just the interface with the IEC system,” Ramaphosa said. “The candidates’ list was there for the whole country. They were submitted, and in regard to those areas there were some glitches.” [1]
Ramaphosa also said the matter was manageable and that a solution should be found so that technical problems did not prevent voters from selecting their preferred candidates. [1][1]
The President’s position reinforces the ANC’s central argument.
The party is not denying the deadline. It is disputing whether the incomplete final electronic step should erase candidate information that had already been entered into the IEC system before the cut-off.
The outcome will depend on the evidence, but the political principle is clear: an electronic process should serve the election, not unnecessarily reduce the choices available to the public.
Captured ≠ submitted?
The ANC says the affected names and required information were on the IEC system before the deadline.
The DA says this was a separate mandatory step. The ANC alleges technical difficulty; the IEC disputes system failure.
The dispute is over the legal status of what was completed before the nomination deadline, not whether a deadline existed.
The IEC’s position
The IEC has rejected the ANC’s claim that its system experienced a failure at the time nominations closed. It has stated that 2 274 candidate names were captured on its online system but were not finally submitted by 17H00 on 28 August. [1]
That position gives the Commission a clear defence.
The IEC is responsible for applying the timetable consistently, and it must protect the integrity and certainty of the election process. If a final submission is required, the Commission will argue that parties are responsible for ensuring that the final step is completed before the deadline.
But the IEC’s position also makes the court’s examination necessary.
The dispute is not about whether the names were completely absent from the system. The IEC accepts that they were captured.
The dispute concerns the legal significance of that capture and the effect of the incomplete final submission.
That is precisely the kind of question that should be settled by a court rather than by political accusation.
A case about voter choice
The ANC’s most important contribution to this debate is its insistence that the matter should not be reduced to a party’s administrative difficulty.
The issue concerns the electorate.
Voters in the affected municipalities should not have their choices narrowed unless the law clearly requires that result. Where candidates’ names have been captured before the deadline and where the same circumstances affected multiple parties, the public is entitled to know whether exclusion is necessary or whether a lawful, equal remedy exists.
A democratic election is not strengthened merely because fewer candidates appear on the ballot.
It is strengthened when the ballot accurately reflects the candidates and parties that complied with the law, and when disputes are resolved transparently, consistently and without partisan interference.
The ANC says its proposed remedy would not privilege the ANC. It wants relief to apply to all parties that can demonstrate that their candidates were captured before the deadline and affected by the same problem. Whether that relief is available, and on what terms, remains for the court to determine. [5]
That is the fair approach.
How the case may be decided
The ANC faces a demanding legal test because election deadlines exist for good reason.
The court will likely examine three issues.
Was there a completed submission?
The ANC must show that capturing the candidate information amounted to a legally valid submission, or that the final step was prevented by a technical problem attributable to the electronic process.
If the court finds that the ANC merely uploaded information but did not complete a mandatory submission, the case will be difficult.
Was the problem technical or administrative?
The ANC will need to provide evidence of system behaviour, timestamps, error reports, support records and communications made before or immediately after the deadline.
The party’s case will be stronger if it can show that administrators attempted to complete the process, that the system prevented them from doing so and that similar problems affected other parties.
Can the remedy apply equally?
The ANC’s strongest argument is that any remedy must be available to all affected parties, not only the ANC.
That helps separate the case from a request for condonation or special treatment. The ANC is asking the court to preserve the affected candidates’ access to the ballot on the same basis, regardless of political affiliation.
Evidence, validity and equal treatment
What do the nomination rules require, and what was completed before the deadline?
System logs, timestamps and support records may establish what prevented completion.
The ANC seeks equal relief. Its availability and scope, and the DA’s application to intervene, are for the court.
The likely outcome
The ANC’s case is not guaranteed to succeed. Courts are cautious about reopening electoral deadlines, and the IEC will argue that certainty requires the final submission to have been completed before 17H00.
The ANC’s prospects will depend on whether it can prove that the lists were effectively submitted before the deadline and that the outstanding electronic action resulted from a system problem rather than an internal failure to complete the process.
If the evidence shows only that candidate information was captured, without a completed final submission or proof of a system failure, the court may uphold the IEC’s decision.
If the evidence shows that the information was fully lodged before the deadline and that the final confirmation failed because of the electronic system, the court may find that the candidates should not be excluded.
The ANC should therefore continue to place the evidence before the court while keeping its public message focused on equal treatment and voter choice.
The strongest case is not that the ANC deserves to win because it is the governing party.
The strongest case is that the law should not be applied in a way that excludes candidates from dozens of political parties when their information had already been captured before the deadline and when the cause of the incomplete submission remains disputed.
If the ruling goes against the ANC
A loss would not end the ANC’s campaign.
At its 8 September briefing, the ANC said it had presented 9 128 candidates nationally. IOL reported Mbalula’s total of 8 947 registered candidates: 4 366 ward candidates and 4 581 proportional-representation candidates. The distinction matters: the larger number is not a total of completed IEC registrations. The party says the dispute affects 181 candidates in six municipalities. [5]
The ANC would still contest the election across the overwhelming majority of the country.
If the court rules against the party, the ANC should accept the judgment, communicate clearly with communities in the affected municipalities and ensure that supporters understand where the party is contesting.
It should also conduct a full internal review of the nomination process. That review must identify who was responsible for final submissions, why the electronic status of the lists was not confirmed before the deadline and what safeguards must be introduced for future elections.
Accepting an adverse judgment would not mean accepting the DA’s political narrative. The ANC could respect the court while continuing to argue that the nomination system should be improved and that future electronic processes must provide immediate, unambiguous confirmation when a submission has been completed.
The party’s wider campaign would remain intact.
Its message would be that the ANC took every lawful step available to defend the candidates and voters affected, respected the judgment and continued the work of earning public support.
If the ANC succeeds
A successful application would allow the court to recognise the affected lists or direct the IEC to apply an equal remedy to parties in the same position.
Depending on the reasons for the judgment, that outcome could vindicate the ANC’s argument that the matter was not about seeking preferential treatment but about the legal status of information lodged before the deadline.
It would also provide important guidance to the IEC and political parties about digital candidate nominations.
The Commission would need to clarify:
- The exact point at which an electronic list becomes final.
- The confirmation that parties must receive.
- How technical failures must be recorded.
- How affected parties should be notified.
- What remedies are available before ballots are finalised.
A favourable judgment would protect voter choice while reinforcing the need for better systems and stronger party administration.
The ANC’s position is principled
The ANC has not asked the DA to remove its candidates. It has not asked for an extension designed only for itself. It has not asked the IEC to ignore the law.
It has asked the Electoral Court to determine whether candidate information already captured before the deadline should be recognised as a valid submission and whether the same relief should apply to every party affected by the same circumstances.
The DA’s intervention is therefore unnecessary and politically revealing.
The IEC is already before the court. The Commission can defend its decision. The question belongs to the Electoral Court, not to a rival political party seeking to influence which candidates appear on the ballot.
Mbalula’s position is clear: the DA’s participation could leave thousands of candidates from parties other than the ANC excluded, while the ANC’s requested relief would not remove a single DA candidate. [2][3]
The ANC is defending a democratic principle that extends beyond its own candidates.
It is defending the right of voters to see the candidates who seek their support and to make the final decision at the ballot box.
The court will determine the law.
The people must determine the election.
Related reading
Sources and further reading
The reporting below distinguishes party claims from the IEC’s response. Legal assessments in this article are Political Desk commentary, not findings of the Electoral Court.
- Ramaphosa’s remarks and the IEC’s position, RT, republishing IOL, 7 September 2026
- ANC opposes DA intervention, EWN, 10 September 2026
- Mbalula’s statement and the DA’s intervention arguments, TimesLIVE, 10 September 2026
- DA’s official statement on its application to intervene, September 2026
- ANC briefing: candidate totals and proposed equal relief, IOL, 8 September 2026
- The six municipalities and candidate-list process, Newsnote, 8 September 2026
- Municipality list, court arguments and IEC response, Daily Maverick, 9 September 2026