Eastern Cape High Court: ANC Ward Nominations Set Aside for Unfairness

On November 9, 2026, the Electoral Court of South Africa, in the case of *Mtshetsha and Another v African National Congress National Executive Committee and Others*, set aside the African National Congress National Executive Committee's (ANC NEC) ward nominations due to procedural unfairness but crucially refused to compel the Electoral Commission to accept late replacements. This ruling addresses a significant internal party dispute concerning candidate selection, highlighting the judiciary's role in ensuring fairness within political processes while also respecting the operational independence of the electoral body. The specific nature of the procedural unfairness was not detailed in the excerpt, but it was sufficient for the court to invalidate the nominations.

This judgment carries substantial legal significance for political parties, electoral bodies, and the broader democratic process in South Africa. It reinforces the principle that even internal party nomination processes must adhere to standards of procedural fairness, which is a cornerstone of administrative justice and good governance. For practitioners, it underscores the potential for judicial intervention in party affairs when fundamental rights or fair process principles are violated. However, the court's refusal to compel the Electoral Commission to accept late replacements is equally significant, demonstrating judicial deference to the Commission's mandate to manage elections efficiently and adhere to established timelines, thereby preventing potential chaos or unfairness to other parties or candidates.

The legal context for this case is rooted in South African electoral law, primarily the Electoral Act, 1998, and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, particularly sections dealing with political rights, the independence of the Electoral Commission, and the right to fair administrative action. The Electoral Court, established under the Electoral Commission Act, 1996, possesses specific jurisdiction to adjudicate electoral disputes, including those related to candidate nominations and party compliance with electoral rules. The concept of "procedural unfairness" is a well-established principle in South African administrative law, requiring that decisions affecting rights or legitimate expectations be made following a fair process. The key parties involved were Mtshetsha and Another as the applicants, the African National Congress National Executive Committee as the primary respondent, and the Electoral Commission as an implicitly involved party whose actions were sought to be compelled.

Attorneys advising political parties must take note of this ruling as a critical reminder to meticulously review and adhere to their internal nomination procedures, ensuring they are transparent, fair, and compliant with both party constitutions and broader legal principles of administrative justice. Failure to do so risks costly and disruptive litigation that could invalidate candidate lists. For practitioners advising the Electoral Commission or involved in electoral litigation, this case clarifies the limits of judicial intervention; while courts will address internal party injustices, they will generally not override the practical and statutory duties of the Electoral Commission, especially when it comes to critical election timelines.

Therefore, legal professionals should counsel their clients, whether political parties or individual candidates, on the importance of early and compliant engagement with electoral processes. Parties should proactively audit their internal rules and practices to prevent similar challenges, while candidates should be aware of their rights to fair process and the avenues for redress within the electoral framework. The outcome of this specific matter, beyond the setting aside of nominations and the refusal to compel, is not further reported in the excerpt, but its implications for future electoral disputes are clear.