MVC FACT SHEET ONE:My Vote Counts

  • MVC is a non-profit company that aims to improve the accountability, transparency and inclusiveness of elections and politics in the Republic of South Africa.
  • MVC achieves this through the following:
  • campaigning for reform of the political party funding system in South Africa, through the introduction of legislation and other measures;
  • campaigning for reform of the electoral system in South Africa, so as to allow voters to elect individual Members of Parliament from their constituencies; and
  • creating platforms to unite South African citizens and organisations in finding democratic solutions to the challenges of our time, with a particular focus on civic, legal and political education.

MVC FACT SHEET TWO: MVC’s new court case

  • MVC’s application to the Constitutional Court in 2015 seeking to impose on Parliament the obligation to enact legislation to regulate private political party funding was dismissed.
  • The majority judgement in the Constitutional Court found that MVC should employ PAIA to access the information that it seeks, and that should PAIA not allow for this access, then it should challenge the constitutionality of PAIA.
  • The judgement was delivered in September 2015 and MVC has since consulted with its lawyers, and other civil society organisations involved in access to information work in South Africa, in order to determine a way forward.
  • As part of the preparation for lodging this court case, MVC sent PAIA requests to the 13 political parties represented in the National Assembly. We received 4 responses, and none of the political parties agree to provide the information requested under PAIA.
  • MVC is therefore applying to the Cape Town High Court to declare that PAIAis inconsistent with the constitutional and invalid with regards to its unsuitability in terms of access to private political party funding information.
  • MVC will argue that:

a)section 32(1), read with section 19 of the Constitution, as access to accurate information about the private funding of political parties is reasonably required for the effective exercise of the right to vote and to make political choices.

b)section 7(2) of the constitution, as transparency in the funding of political parties is required for the effective prevention and detection of corruption, which erodes the state's capacity to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights. To this end, the obligation is strengthened by South Africa's international obligations, as well as by sections 195, 215 and 217 of the Constitution, which require the promotion of transparency in public administration, public finance and public procurement, respectively.

c)the right of access to information and the right to vote are undeniably and inextricably interconnected;

d)the right to vote is the right to cast an informed vote, and the right to make political choices is the right to make informed political choices.

MVC FACT SHEET THREE: The 2015 Constitutional Court Judgement

  • MVC asked the Constitutional Court to ‘compel Parliament to pass legislation that obliges political parties to disclose the sources of their private funding’.
  • MVC argued ‘that information about political parties’ private funding is essential to an informed exercise of the right to vote’, and relied on section 32,” Access to information” of the constitution.
  • MVC argued further that ‘PAIA does not require disclosure of party political funding’, which is the information that they seek.
  • The Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, two of the respondents, argued that Parliament had fulfilled their obligations to section 32 by enacting PAIA.
  • Parliament argued further MVC should access the information that it seeks under PAIA and if it is unable to, it should ‘challenge the constitutionality of PAIA in the High Court’.
  • Majority Judgement: That ‘PAIA is the legislation envisaged in section 32(2) of the Constitution. The applicant has not challenged it frontally for being constitutionally invalid. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it ought to have done so as that principle is applicable to this application.’ The application was dismissed
  • Minority Judgement: ‘...that Parliament has failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to enact national legislation to give effect to the right of access to information as required by section 32(2) of the constitution, to the extent that –

a)Information about the private funding of political parties registered for elections for any legislative body established under the Constitution is reasonably required for the effective exercise of the right to vote in those elections; and

b)no national legislation currently requires that this information be publicly accessible.’

MVC FACT SHEET FOUR: The IDASA Case

  • Judgement handed down 20 April 2005
  • Aimed to ‘establish the principle that political parties, or at least those represented in the national, provincial and local government legislatures, are obliged in terms of s32(1) of the constitution and s 11 or s 50 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA), to disclose particulars of all the substantial donations they receive, on due and proper request for those particulars made by any adult South African citizen’.
  • The respondents, the four largest political parties(ANC, DA, IFP and NNP) prior to the 2004 elections, opposed the relief claimed.
  • The political parties involved admitted to the ‘need for transparency, openness, accountability and the combatting of corruption in public life’.
  • The application was dismissed.