GOOD Party to challenge Zille’s Joburg mayoral candidacy over residency concerns - IOL

The GOOD Party says it will challenge Helen Zille’s Johannesburg mayoral candidacy if its legal team finds that her registration does not comply with the Electoral Act’s ordinary-residence requirements.

The GOOD Party has asked its legal team to advise whether Helen Zille’s registration in Johannesburg complies with the Electoral Act's requirements for her candidacy for the city's mayorship.

GOOD secretary-general and Western Cape MPL Brett Herron said the party’s review of the relevant legislation had raised questions about the lawfulness of Zille’s registration.

“GOOD has asked its legal team to advise whether Zille’s registration in Johannesburg complies with sections 7(3) and 8(3) of the Electoral Act and, if not, what remedies are available,” Herron said.

Section 7(3) defines ordinary residence as the home where a person normally lives and regularly returns to after a temporary absence.

GOOD said Zille had made her home in Cape Town for more than 40 years and pointed to her own public account that her husband, his church and their retirement village are in Cape Town.

The party said Zille also regularly returns home and would not commit to staying in Johannesburg if she loses.

“Section 8(3) requires a voter to be registered only in the ward where they are ordinarily resident,” Herron said.

“Zille’s presence in Johannesburg looks suspiciously like a temporary absence from Cape Town, where she ordinarily resides, not a change of hometown.”

GOOD said it would wait for advice from its legal team before deciding whether to challenge Zille’s candidacy.

“If GOOD is advised that Zille’s candidacy is unlawful, it will be challenged in the appropriate legal forum,” Herron said.

IOL has reached out to the IEC for comment and will update this story if a response is received.

The party is also defending its PR list in the Electoral Court after the DA challenged the lists submitted by GOOD, ActionSA, the EFF and MK.

GOOD said its PR list, containing one named candidate in each of the 25 municipalities it is contesting, complied with the law and was certified by the IEC.

“The DA’s application, seeking the exclusion of GOOD, ActionSA, the EFF and MK from the PR ballot, or to restrict the number of seats they may fill, reflects bad-faith desperation to manufacture legal technicalities and voter confusion, and subvert voters’ choices,” Herron said.

GOOD said neither the Municipal Electoral Act nor the Municipal Structures Act prescribes a minimum number of names on a party list.

The party said the Municipal Structures Act provides that where a party wins more seats than it has names on its list, the IEC must notify the party and ask it to add eligible candidates within two days.

“The ‘honest underestimation’ test on which the DA relies is gobbledygook that appears nowhere in the Act. Before submitting its lists, GOOD asked the IEC in writing whether single-candidate lists were permissible,” Herron said.

“Supplementing lists after the election enables parties to reward ward candidates who drew strong support, recognise excellent campaign work, match expertise to responsibilities – and, ultimately, maximise the quality of public representatives.”

The party also said the DA had filed single-name lists in 12 municipalities.

“GOOD will defend its lists in court; they comply with the law as Parliament wrote it, not as the DA would prefer it to have been written,” Herron said.