The ongoing legal proceedings involving the MK Party and the IEC are revealing complexities that could significantly influence the democratic framework of South Africa. Picture: Supplied
THE ongoing legal proceedings involving the Umkhonto Wesizwe (MK) Party and the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) are revealing complexities that could significantly influence the democratic framework of South Africa.
The central figure in this case is Dr Vusi Mhlongo, an expert witness whose critical findings regarding the 2024 elections have resulted in death threats, professional consequences, and misrepresentation in the media.
The implications are significant. The MK Party is pursuing a court order to annul the national and provincial elections scheduled for May 29, 2024, contending that these elections did not meet the standards of being free and fair as stipulated in Section 19(2) of the Constitution.
Mhlongo expressed significant scepticism regarding the IEC’s digital vote-capturing and reporting system, characterising it as unreliable and flawed:
However, these revelations have placed Mhlongo in the crosshairs. According to his attorney, Barnabas Xulu, the expert has faced death threats and harassment, which have been reported to the SA Police Service (SAPS).
“The legitimacy of elections is vital to any democracy, and Dr Mhlongo remains committed to defending his findings despite these risks,” Xulu told the Sunday Independent.
In addition to threats, Mhlongo faces disciplinary action from his employer for his role in the case. A hearing is scheduled for November 20-21, further complicating his ability to assist the MK Party in preparing its legal response.
At the crux of the case are allegations of the IEC’s failure to provide sufficient transparency regarding its election systems. The MK Party’s legal team has accused the IEC of acting in bad faith by denying remote access with system administration rights, which would allow a detailed investigation of the system downtime on May 31, 2024.
“The restrictions imposed by the IEC severely limit our ability to evaluate critical system activities during the shutdown. This lack of transparency raises serious concerns about potential manipulation or rigging,” Xulu said.
Given the stakes, the MK Party has requested a deadline extension from November 19 to November 29, 2024, for filing its replying affidavit.
“The IEC took over a month to respond with a voluminous reply, yet they’ve withheld critical information required for our case. The requested extension is vital to ensure a detailed and expert-driven response,” Xulu said.
Notably, the IEC has indicated it would not oppose the extension, but the Electoral Court’s decision remains pending.
Compounding Mhlongo’s challenges are misleading media reports attributing statements to him that he did not make. Xulu dismissed these claims, emphasising that neither Mhlongo nor the MK Party would engage in conjecture that distracted from the core issue of electoral legitimacy.
This case is about more than one expert or one election—it strikes at the heart of South Africa’s democratic system.
Mhlongo’s plight underscores the personal risks faced by those who challenge entrenched systems of power, while the IEC’s alleged lack of transparency raises broader concerns about accountability in governance.
The MK Party’s legal team is hopeful the court will consider all factors, including the threats against Dr. Mhlongo, when making its decision. “We trust that the Electoral Court will apply itself diligently to the facts presented,” Xulu said.
As South Africa waits for the next chapter in this legal battle, one thing is clear: The outcome will have far-reaching implications for the integrity of elections and the protection of those who seek to uphold democratic principles.
sizwe.dlamini@inl.co.za
Related Topics: