The controversial Electoral Amendment Act faces another Constitutional Court challenge, this time related to the signatures prospective independent candidates must obtain to be eligible and the way the seats will be recalculated when there are vacancies.

Last month, Independent Candidates Association (ICA) chairperson Michael Louis applied for direct access to the Constitutional Court to challenge the Act.

The challenge is based on the fact that only 200 of the National Assembly's 400 seats are available to independent candidates, and will create an "unfair election, distorts proportionality, and reduces the value of votes cast in favour of independent candidates for no reason, let alone a convincing reason".

Now One South Africa (OSA) has followed suit.

The Act requires independent candidates to submit to the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) a declaration with names, identity numbers, and signatures of voters who support their candidature.

To be elected to the National Assembly, the names must equal 15% of the number of votes required to obtain a seat for that region in the preceding election, if contesting only one region.

This means independent candidates contesting in next year's elections will have to get the following number of signatures in each province, based on the 2019 election results:

Eastern Cape: 11 656

Free State: 11 340

Gauteng: 13 890

KwaZulu-Natal: 13 045

Limpopo: 11 329

Mpumalanga: 11 924

North West: 10 652

Northern Cape: 10 271

Western Cape: 13 201

If you intend to contest more than one region, you need to get signatures amounting to 15% of the province with the highest quota in the preceding election.

For instance, if a candidate wants to compete in Gauteng and the Northern Cape, they will need to get the Gauteng figure of 13 890, instead of the Northern Cape's 10 271.

In his founding affidavit, OSA national chairperson Jonas Mothibe Mogoale states: "The chief complaint of OSA is that the Amendment Act requires both political parties and independent candidates to acquire the same number of signatures in order to register."

He noted that the signature requirement’s stated purpose was to "limit the number of frivolous candidates on the ballot" and that the requirement for new parties, before the amendment, was 1 000 signatures.

'Out of kilter'

"The only reasonable inference to draw is that 1 000 signatures satisfied the same purpose: So that political parties are serious about entering the election race," Mogoale said.

"OSA believes that the Amendment Act unjustifiably, arbitrarily and disproportionately sets an independent candidate's requirement at 15%. It further submits that the requirement does not fulfil any legitimate government purpose and that less restrictive means, such as the original 1 000 signature requirement, would achieve the same objective."

He added that Parliament used provinces as large constituencies, making the signature requirement relative to the large vote thresholds of those provinces.

Mogoale said:

The inescapable inference is that the deliberate decision to use provinces as a unit of measurement for the number of signatures required, is arbitrary.

"Not only does this approach lead to exorbitant numbers of signatures being required, but the principle is out of kilter with the rest of our electoral system. The previous 1 000 signature requirement had no link to the vote threshold nor was it linked to the number of voters per province. It represented an ordinary, feasible and reasonable measure.

"The second issue is that the 15% threshold is arbitrary and is not apparently linked to any legitimate government purpose or objective. Parliament has failed to justify the figure. In other words, it has failed to show a rational connection between the threshold and the purpose sought to be achieved."

OSA is also questioning the constitutionality of the complicated way seats will be recalculated when vacancies occur.

Mogoale argued that it benefits the bigger parties and that ...