The non-partisan New Nation Movement says it will not back down in its bid to have the May elections halted and has decided to take their fight to the Constitutional Court.
Earlier this week the movement filed an urgent court application, but Judge Siraj Desai dismissed the application at the Western Cape High Court with no order as to costs, saying the court did not find it justifiable to intervene in parliamentary processes.
“The question is whether in these circumstances that the court should intervene in the parliamentary process.
“In this instance, it does not appear to be justifiable for this court to intervene,” Judge Desai said.
Speaking to Weekend Argus, the movement’s spokesman, Bulelani Mkhohliswa, who said he was not surprised by the outcome, said they were now awaiting a Concourt date to appeal Judge Desai’s judgment.
“We hope the matter will be heard before May 8,” he said.
“How the judge handled the case has left a lot to be desired. Even attacking who we are and referring to us as obscure people. Even if the judge had ruled in our favour we would have still had to go to the Constitutional Court.
“That is the level that matter is dealt with,” Mkhohliswa said.
Earlier this month the Weekend Argus reported that an application was brought forward by the New Nation Movement, Chantal Dawn Revelle, Mediation Foundation For Peace and Justice, GRO and the Indigenous First Nation Advocacy.
It was argued that the closed-party list system has the effect that the political parties choose their representatives and not the electorate.
“They say the greatest weakness is that it does not ensure individual accountability,” said Desai in his judgment. Judge Desai found that Revelle provided two rather tenuous reasons why she could not join a political party.
One was because she has no confidence in their ability to care or represent the interests for which she stands as a woman and a member of the First Nation Peoples. The second reason was that the royal houses she represents have committed themselves to be impartial and politically non-partisan.
“This explanation warrants little comment and is hardly compelling,” said Judge Desai.
