ActionSA defends its single‑candidate PR list strategy
Background
The Democratic Alliance (DA) has taken ActionSA, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), MK Party and GOOD to the Electoral Court over their use of single‑candidate proportional representation (PR) lists for the November 4 local government elections. The DA argues that parties should not be allowed to hide the names of potential councillors until after the vote.
ActionSA’s legal argument
ActionSA national chairperson Michael Beaumont says the Municipal Electoral Act already gives parties the right to add names to their PR lists after the election if they win more seats than they originally listed. He points to the exact wording of the law:
“If a party list contains fewer candidates than the party is entitled to, the Electoral Commission must in writing immediately notify the party of the exact shortfall and request the party to deliver within two days of the notice a list supplemented by the name or names of one or more eligible candidates.”
Beaumont stresses that the provision does not differentiate between a party that unexpectedly gains extra seats and one that deliberately files a short list beforehand. In his view, the DA’s court case tries to read intentions into the law that the legislators never wrote.
DA’s challenge
The DA contends that the supplementation rule was meant to fix genuine shortfalls, not to let parties keep their candidate lists secret until after the ballots are counted. Federal Council chairperson Ashor Sarupen says voters deserve to know who could represent them before they cast their vote. The DA wants the Electoral Court to decide whether deliberately submitting a single‑candidate PR list is lawful and constitutionally acceptable.
DA’s own use of the rule
Beaumont highlighted that the DA itself has relied on the same mechanism in the past. ActionSA identified twelve KwaZulu‑Natal municipalities—Ntabankulu, Umzumbe, Mkhambathini, Nqutu, Msinga, uMvoti, eDumbe, Nongoma, Ulundi, Big Five Hlabisa, Mfolozi and Maphumulo—where the DA filed one‑seat PR lists for the 2026 elections. The party also produced correspondence from the DA’s KwaZulu‑Natal leadership to the National Freedom Party in 2016, offering NFP seats through the identical supplementation provision. This, ActionSA argues, shows the practice is not new and has been used by the DA before.
Expert opinion
Terry Tselane, executive chairman of the Institute of Election Management Services in Africa, confirmed that the law allows a party to add candidates after the election when it wins more seats than it originally listed. He explained the process: the Electoral Commission notifies the party of the shortfall, and the party must submit additional eligible names within two days. Tselane noted that the legislation does not require every party to file a full PR list before voting; supplementation can happen after results are known but before the first council meeting.
Conclusion
The dispute hinges on how the Municipal Electoral Act’s supplementation clause should be interpreted. ActionSA maintains that the statute clearly permits parties to add names after the election, regardless of whether the shortfall was expected or strategic. The DA, backed by concerns about voter transparency, argues that the rule was never intended to let parties conceal their candidate lists. With expert testimony supporting the legality of post‑election supplementation, the Electoral Court’s ruling will shape how parties approach PR list submissions in future local elections.
