MKP Continues With Legal Charges As They Head to Parliament

• The uMkhonto WeSizwe Party (MKP) will occupy its parliamentary seats after boycotting the first sitting over alleged vote rigging
• Despite their initial boycott, political analyst Arthur Shopola told Briefly News that the MKP has not lost its seats, and the Chief Justice will determine the swearing-in process
• The party will continue to challenge the election results both inside and outside Parliament

Reitumetse Makwea, a Briefly News current affairs journalist in Pretoria, South Africa, has covered local elections, policy changes, the State of the Nation Address and political news at The Citizen and Rekord Noweto for over five years.

The uMkhonto WeSizwe Party (MKP) will soon occupy its seats in the National Assembly following their legal challenge.

Despite the debate around whether or not the party will make its way back to Parliament or if they will lose their seats, the party announced they would go back soon.

Read also

ANC brings in more parties to join GNU coalition agreement

The party emphasised that their participation in Parliament would not deter their efforts to challenge the election results.

After boycotting the first sitting, the party noted they would take up their parliamentary seats.

The boycott was a protest against what the MKP claimed to be widespread vote rigging in the recent General Election.

The party will not forfeit their seats

Shopola emphasised that the MKP has not lost their parliamentary seats despite their initial boycott.

"Those seats belong to the MKP until the next round of elections."

The party’s decision to eventually occupy their seats came after they sought legal advice and realised the necessity of being present in the National Assembly to continue their fight.

Addressing the logistical aspects of the swearing-in process, Shopola noted that the Chief Justice holds the authority over how the process will unfold.

Read also

Election rerun will not happen, according to experts

"They will be sworn in and the how part will depend on the Chief Justice. It does not have to be ceremonial."

However, Shopola also highlighted the possibility of a more public swearing-in ceremony, orchestrated out of respect for the MKP's significant presence in Parliament.

"The Judge might ask the Speaker of Parliament to arrange a date where he will come and facilitate the process in the House, especially looking at the fact that they are many. Also, this can be done out of respect to the fact that MKP is the third-largest in Parliament."

Vote-rigging case continues

According to JacarandaFM, this decision follows their initial refusal to participate in the first parliamentary sitting, citing concerns over alleged vote rigging in the recent General Election.

The MKP had approached the Constitutional Court seeking an urgent interdict to halt the parliamentary process, arguing that the election results, as declared by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), were invalid.

Read also

Police Minister Bheki Cele greenlights presidential inauguration, SA ready to see him go

Jacob Zuma conveyed their decision through a statement by party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela in Johannesburg on Sunday.

"Unified action is crucial; we can't afford division when the opposition unites against us. We will keep highlighting the issue of election fraud in Parliament while intensifying legal and constitutional efforts outside. We provided the IEC with solid evidence of widespread voting irregularities, but it has been ignored."

According to Ndhlela, the party had presented concrete evidence to the IEC, which was allegedly ignored.

Their attempts to seek redress peacefully, including approaching the Constitutional Court, have also been unsuccessful.

ConCourt dismisses MKP’s application

Briefly News previously reported that the Constitutional Court dismissed the MK Party's urgent application to stop the National Assembly from convening, citing a lack of merit and procedural flaws.

Legal experts noted the party misinterpreted the Constitution and failed to provide substantive evidence. The court emphasised the importance of following procedural requirements and ensuring democratic governance.

Source: Briefly News