The Electoral Commission has written to both leadership groups within the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) advising them of its intention to await the outcome of ongoing court cases before recognising either faction as the rightful leadership of the party. The party has split into two factions – one aligned to Narius Moloto and the other to Mzwanele Nyhontso.
In a letter issued 5 November to the party by the IEC’s lawyers, the Commission said the renewed leadership dispute and litigation had made it impossible for it to determine the rightful leadership.
“It is clear that there is still a raging leadership dispute within the PAC and, what is more, there are disputes between the warring groupings about the current status of their litigation and the legal effect thereof,” lawyers for the Commission wrote.
“The Commission’s enduring position is that the Commission is neither empowered nor able to resolve leadership disputes and to determine which grouping comprises the legitimate leadership of a party, and the PAC is no exception. Such disputes must either be resolved politically inside the party concerned, or, failing which, they should be resolved by the courts.
“In view thereof, the Commission is minded to await the final outcome of the current proceedings prior to it making a final decision on whom to recognise as representing the PAC.”
The letter invites both groups to write to the Commission within seven days providing reasons why the Commission should or should not:
- Retract the decision communicated in its letters of 9 and 14 October 2019 pending the finalisation of the current litigation; and
- Adopt the attitude that there exists a dispute regarding who comprises the legitimate leadership of the PAC and that, for as long as this dispute persists, the Commission will not recognise any of the groupings.
In October, based on the interpretation of court rulings and the status of litigation at the time, the Commission had amended its record to indicate the Nyhontso grouping as the legitimate leadership of the party. However, subsequent correspondence from both sides revealed disputes as to whether the most recent court orders were in effect, or whether they were suspended pending appeal.
