Electoral Amendment Bill: adoption

Meeting report

The Chairperson greeted Members.

Apologies were noted.

The Chairperson sought clarity on the quorum needed.

The Committee Secretary explained that in terms of the rules, one-third needed to be present. There are currently 7 members in attendance. The Committee does quorate.

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee was meeting to consider and adopt the proposed amendments to the Electoral Amendment Bill (EAB); each clause contained in the Bill; and its report on the Bill. During the meeting on 21 November 2022, Members requested two amendments be made to the Bill. One, the Bill should be more explicit on how it would address the instance where an independent candidate did not achieve the 20% of the highest regional quota.

Two, the Bill should specify that the electoral reform panel only be able to make decisions within its mandate and whether its members should be prevented from making their disagreements with the public statements on their disagreements once the body is dissolved, to prevent them from making public statements on such decisions or disagreements, bearing in mind the Constitutional provisions of free speech and rights limitations.

These amendments had a bearing on clauses 3, 6 and 23. In its most recent meeting, the Committee requested that the Parliamentary Legal Services (PLS) and the State Law Advisors look into and finalise all of the proposals made by Members – which they have since done, with a document circulated to Members.

Following the briefing by the State Law Advisor on the amendments, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) and PLS would be given the opportunity to make comments on the Bill, she said.

Correspondence from Mr Atkins

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) requested that Members consider the email sent by Mr Michael Atkins to the Chairperson, where he alleged that the IEC had misled the Committee on the EAB, before they proceed with discussions on the Bill. Furthermore, she suggested that Mr Atkinson be allowed to appear before Members and express his concerns.

The Chairperson confirmed that Mr Atkins did write an email to her, after which she requested that he send his communication through the official Parliamentary channels, which he did. Thereafter, the Committee forwarded the email to the IEC. Mr Atkins subsequently met with the Commission and the Committee is awaiting an update on what was discussed between the two parties. She added that the Committee took a decision not to open up the process for oral submissions from the public.

Mr E Mthethwa (ANC, KZN) supported the Chairperson’s decision and asked that Ms Labuschagne respect the Committee’s decision not to open up the process for oral submissions from the public.

Ms Labuschagne, after acknowledging the Committee’s decision, asked that the IEC inform Members what its response to the allegations were before deliberations on the Bill continued.

The Chairperson maintained that the Committee should continue with its planned agenda.

Mr Mthethwa said the Committee should not be held to ransom on a matter that is has not yet discussed. As such, he proposed that the Committee continue with its agenda.

Ms M Bartlett (ANC, Northern Cape) moved to support Mr Mthethwa’s proposal.

Mr C Dodovu (ANC, North West) did not understand why the Committee was discussing the matter, especially as all Members were made aware that the public participation process was not opened for oral submissions. He asked whether Mr Atkins was a member of the DA and Ms Labuschagne acted on his behalf. If she was not acting on his behalf, Mr Atkinson had the right to address his queries through the correct Parliamentary channels. He then requested that the Committee continue with its proceedings.

The Chairperson indicated that she no longer wanted to entertain Ms Labuschagne’s point, so as to avoid a dialogue.

Ms Labuschagne rose on a point of order and clarified that she was not acting on behalf of Mr Atkinson.

Mr N Hadebe (IFP, KZN) called Ms Labuschagne to order and asked her to respect the Chairperson’s decision.

Mr Dodovu stressed that Ms Labuschagne, as a Member of the Committee, had an obligation to respect the proceedings of the meeting.

The Chairperson mentioned that a majority of the Members agreed that the process needed to continue.

Following that, she requested that the State law advisors take the Committee through the amendments made to the draft EAB.

Briefing on the Draft EAB

Adv Suraya Williams, Principal state Law Advisor, Office of the Chief State Law Advisor (OCSLA), took the Committee through the amendments made to clauses 3, 6 and 23 of the EAB.

Read: Proposed Amendments: [B1B—2022] Electoral A/B (these are highlighted in red)

Following the briefing, the Chairperson mentioned that the amendments were in line with the requests made by the Committee in the previous meeting. Afterward, she asked whether the DHA and IEC had any comments to make.

Mr Sibongakonke Ngwenya, Legal Advisor, DHA, concurred with the proposed amendments as discussed in the previous meeting. It captures what was discussed previously.

Mr Mosotho Moepya, Chairperson, IEC, indicated that he wanted to set the record straight on a matter that had been raised. It relates to the Commission’s engagement with Mr Atkins.

He explained that Mr Atkins did make a written submission to the Committee during the public consultation process. Some of the technical issues in his submission were then forwarded to the IEC for consideration. The IEC did give a response to the Committee on a number of models and stated assumptions to each model. After receiving the IEC’s response, Mr Atkins wrote back to the Commission, noting his disagreement with one of the Commission’s proposed models. To resolve their differences, both parties met but no agreement was reached that the Commission misled the Committee and the models presented, with the assumptions, were misleading or false. The meeting ended amicably and Mr Atkins was asked to put in writing exactly what he had a problem with because he could not articulate it in a manner that the Commission could understand in the meeting. This was done. The Commission is looking at his letter and will respond to him and the Committee. He denied that the Commission misled the Committee. It was not proper to say that omission has misled the Committee while it is considering the matter.

Mr Sy Mamobolo, Chief Executive Officer, IEC, indicated that the IEC supported the refinements made to clauses 3, 6, and 23 as requested by the Committee.

Adv Siviwe Njikela, Senior Legal Parliamentary Advisor, Constitutional and Legal Services Office (CLSO) told the Committee that the CLSO had conferred with colleagues, had given consideration to what was proposed and are comfortable with the amendments made.

The Chairperson said that the Committee respected the independence of the IEC. Furthermore, Members acknowledged the important responsibility assigned to the Commission, to ensure that elections are free and fair. She agreed that it was incorrect to cast aspersions on the IEC based on the view of one individual. Nonetheless, she was pleased that the IEC will address the matter and provide the Committee with a response.

Ms Labuschagne was seeking additional clarity.

Before she could conclude her pint, Mr Mthethwa rose on a point of order.

The Chairperson recognised him.

Mr Mthethwa pointed out that since the Chairperson had presented the Commission’s views, and ruling has been made, the Committee should no longer consider Ms Labuschagne’s points on the matter.

Ms Labuschagne asked for the IEC to provide further clarity on the matter. The IEC said they are still looking at the submission from a member of the public.

The Chairperson said the Committee would no longer entertain her point.

Ms Labuschagne said that her rights were being taken away by the Committee.

The Chairperson strongly opposed that assertion and requested that Ms Labuschagne respect the views of all Members on the matter.

Ms Labuschagne mentioned that she had never received such treatment from any Parliamentary Committee. How is it possible that the Committee is processing the Bill when the IEC is still looking at a submission?

The Chairperson then requested a mover for the adoption of the amendments made to the Bill.

Mr M Dangor (ANC, Gauteng) moved for the adoption of the amendments made to the Bill.

Ms Bartlett seconded the mover for the adoption of the amendments made to the Bill.

Ms C Visser (DA, North West) raised the DA’s objection.

The Chairperson indicated that in the absence of an abstention, the amendments were adopted by the majority.

Thereafter, she mentioned that the Committee would proceed to the adoption of clauses three, six and 21.

EAB clause-by-clause consideration

Clause 3

The Chairperson said that clauses 3 and 6 largely ensure that there is parity and fairness in the treatment of independent candidates and political parties. Similar to the requirements for independent candidates in clause 6, clause 3 provides for parties who are registered but are not represented in the National Assembly or the provincial legislatures, they would be required to produce the 20% quota of signature of votes. Further, once the independent candidates and registered political parties are represented in the National Assembly provincial legislatures, they would be exempted from this requirement.

Thereafter she requested a mover for the adoption of clause three of the EAB.

Mr Dodovu moved for the adoption of clause 3 of the EAB.

Ms N Ndongeni (ANC, Eastern Cape) seconded the mover for the adoption of clause three of the EAB.

Ms Visser raised the DA’s objection to clause 3 of the EAB.

The Chairperson indicated that because the majority of members are in support, the clause is carried.

Clause 6

The Chairperson requested a mover for the adoption of clause 6 of the EAB.

Ms Bartlett moved for the adoption of clause six of the EAB.

Ms A Maleka (ANC, Mpumalanga) seconded the mover for the adoption of clause six of the EAB.

The Chairperson indicated that in the absence of an abstention or objection, clause 6 was duly adopted by the Committee.

Clause 21

The Chairperson explained that clause 21 makes amendments to schedule 1A of the revised bill and it deals with the awarding of seats in the case of an independent candidate contesting more than one a region with a greater proportion of votes instead of most votes. It gives better effect to the voice of voters. It rectifies the forfeiture calculation which inadvertently protects an independent candidate

When an independent candidate has to make a choice between either a provincial or regional seat, it is treated as a vacancy and not a forfeiture calculation so that any seats already won are retained. There are other consequential amendments, deletions to certain phrases that are redundant and the inclusion of the reverse forfeiture calculation which is essential to protect seats mid-term should a vacancy arise.

The Chairperson requested a mover for the adoption of clause 21 of the EAB.

Mr Bartlett moved for the adoption of clause 21 of the EAB.

Ms N Ndongeni seconded the mover for the adoption of clause 21 of the EAB.

The Chairperson indicated that in the absence of an abstention or objection, clause 21 was duly adopted by the.

Clause 23

The Chairperson said that this provision establishes the electoral reform consultation panel to investigate, consult and make non-binding recommendations in respect of electoral reforms to the electoral system. This clause will serve as a transitional provision. the clause also deals with reporting and timeframes for reporting, the functioning and dissolution of the panel, amongst others.

Mr Mthethwa moved for the adoption of clause 23.

Mr Dangor seconded the mover.

Ms Labuschange indicated the DA’s objection.

The Chairperson indicated that because the majority of members are in support, the clause is carried.

The Chairperson said that the majority of members are in support of the amendment bill.

Consideration and adoption of the Committee’s report on the EAB

The Chairperson took the Committee through the report. Following this, she requested a mover for the adoption of the report.

Ms Bartlett moved for the adoption of the Committee’s report on the EAB.

Mr Dangor seconded the mover for the adoption of the Committee’s report on the EAB.

Ms Labuschagne raised the DA’s objection to the adoption of the report.

The Chairperson indicated that the report is duly adopted by the Committee.

Read: ATC221125: Report of the Select Committee on Security and Justice on the Electoral Amendment Bill [B1B-2022] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 25 November 2022

Closing remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson mentioned that the Committee took into consideration the public’s input on the proposed amendments, which it believed will serve to create parity to the signature requirements in the Bill. The proposed amendments to Schedule 1A also enhanced the Bill by inserting the highest proportion instead of the most votes. In addition, the inclusion of a new paragraph allowed for a reverse forfeiture calculation to be done, which has been added to protect seats in the Committee should a vacancy arise.

Many of the concerns raised in the public submissions relating to broader electoral reform would be addressed by the electoral reform consultation panel, which once established, will receive the views and opinions of all relevant stakeholders in the formulation of such reform post the 2024 National/Provincial elections. Members believed that the proposed amendments served to enhance and strengthen the Bill, by making provision for independent candidates to contest elections.

Thereafter, she thanked all those who were involved during the entire process for their contributions.

The meeting was adjourned.