Ebrahim Harvey argues that it is unclear why the Independent Electoral Commission and the Electoral court only paid attention to the contending legal and technical issues involved in deciding if Jacob Zuma is eligible to stand for Parliament, and not examine his track record on corruption while in office.
I closely followed the news, analysis and commentary of the decision by the Electoral Court ruling last week to overturn an earlier decision by the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) that former president, Jacob Zuma, was not eligible to stand for election to Parliament as a result of his 2021 conviction for contempt of court.
The Electoral Court took that decision after the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party, formed in 2023 and led by Zuma, appealed a decision it took to bar him from entering the 29 May election as a candidate for Parliament, based on Section 47 (1) (e) of the Constitution.