IEC’s treatment of Zuma harks back to apartheid, says Mpofu: he former president’s lawyer says the Electoral Commission of SA has no power to determine membership of the National Assembly Former president Jacob Zuma’s legal representative, Dali Mpofu, has criticised the Electoral Commission of SA (IEC), saying it has no power to determine membership of the National Assembly and describing its attitude towards his client as akin to the apartheid regime denying people their political rights. The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party is appealing against the IEC’s decision to bar Zuma from being one of its candidates to parliament after the 2024 national and provincial elections on May 29 in the electoral court sitting in Johannesburg… The Electoral Court has set aside the decision by the Electoral Commission of SA (IEC) to bar former president Jacob Zuma from contesting a parliamentary seat, paving the way for him to run for a seat in the National Assembly after the 2024 national and provincial elections next month. This is after the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party appealed on Monday against the IEC’s decision to bar Zuma from being one of the party’s candidates to parliament after the general elections on May 29. “The application for leave to appeal is granted,” the Electoral Court said in its ruling on Tuesday. “The decision of the [IEC] of 28 March 2024 … is set aside and substituted with the following: ‘The objection is hereby dismissed’.” No order was made regarding costs. Zuma backs the MK party and his name appears first on its candidate list but the IEC in March said it had endorsed objections to Zuma’s nomination to stand for parliament due to his criminal record arising from a 15-month prison sentence imposed by the Constitutional Court in 2021. Section 47 of the constitution bars individuals sentenced to prison for longer than 12 months without the option of a fine from becoming MPs. However, Zuma’s legal team, which includes advocate Dali Mpofu argued, on Monday that the IEC lacked the power, jurisdiction and/or authority to implement section 47(1)(e) of the constitution, which deals with regulating membership of the National Assembly. That power resided with the National Assembly itself, he said. Zuma’s legal team argued the former president was neither accused of nor charged with an offence by a criminal court and that he was not afforded “fair criminal rights” in terms of the constitution. Zuma began serving his sentence on July 8 2021 before being released on medical parole in September 2021. His release was challenged and set aside by the Constitutional Court. In August 2023, President Cyril Ramaphosa granted Zuma “remission of his sentence in terms of section 84(2) of the Constitution”. Mpofu argued that Zuma was not pardoned. “The difference between a pardon and remission is this: a pardon is to forgive a conviction and sentence. A remission is to forgive the sentence. It’s not rocket science. ‘Remission’ is to cancel… Once a sentence is set aside, it is set aside.” The Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution executive secretary Lawson Naidoo said: “I’m quite surprised by the decision. Section 47 is quite clear that anyone convicted and sentenced to period of more than 12 months is ineligible to stand for parliament. I guess we will have to wait and see what the court’s reasoning is.”