Breaking News - Expats allowed to vote!

[JungleBoy]

Where is the knee jerk reaction? Hundreds of thousand people have been precluded from voting because of this decision. Thats not a small decision.

Other than the people who turned 18 whilst living abroad, there isn't much prejudice to the people who never bothered to register/vote in the previous elections...they were never interested when they lived in this countr.
now we should have postponed our election because of their own apathy?

 

[Abe]

Other than the people who turned 18 whilst living abroad, there isn't much prejudice to the people who never bothered to register/vote in the previous elections...they were never interested when they lived in this countr.
now we should have postponed our election because of their own apathy?

It is precluding everyone who voted in 1994. Also, people who turned 18 here but were planning to move overseas would not have registered because the Act prevented them from voting overseas so there was no point in voting.

Just as a point, no where did I suggest that they postpone the election but they could have added a registration period within the 90 days as was done in the past when the prisoners first got the vote.

 

[Frankie]

Received this email from one of the embassies abroad that has my contact detail.
I'm registered but not sure where in the world I'll be on the 15th April, but that should not be an issue.

Dear Fellow South Africans



The Constitutional Court today (12 March 2009) ruled on the eligibility of South African citizens being able to vote abroad.



In this regard we have received the following statement from the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC):



QUOTE



Following the Constitutional Court ruling of today, 12 March 2009, the IEC will release a formal, official public statement on the matter in due course. In the interim, the following may be used to update your missions abroad:



“South African citizens who are registered voters in South Africa and who intend to vote outside of South Africa in Elections 2009 are required to notify the IEC of SA of their intention to vote outside of SA by 27 March 2009. The notification period has been extended by the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 March 2009. To notify the IEC, registered voters are required to complete a VEC 10 form and return it to the IEC by 27 March 2009. To obtain a VEC 10 form and IEC contact details, please refer to www.elections.org.za and go to `special votes’. To check if you are a registered voter, on the IEC’s web site go to `Am I registered’ and type in your identity number on-line.



Voting outside of SA for Elections 2009 will occur on 15 April 2009 (and not on 22 April 2009) at South African Diplomatic and Consular missions abroad. Once your notification to vote outside of SA is approved by the IEC, you are required to present both your bar-coded South African citizenship identity document (or valid temporary identity certificate) and your (South African) passport to a South African Diplomatic or Consular mission on 15 April 2009. In this regard, a citizen registered to vote outside the Republic will present both their bar-coded South African citizenship identity document (or valid temporary identity certificate) as well as their South African passport when voting.”



Stuart Murphy

Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), South Africa

END QUOTE

 

[Arthur]

Where is the knee jerk reaction? Hundreds of thousand people have been precluded from voting because of this decision. Thats not a small decision.

The knee-jerk is that it wasn't the judge's decision in an urgent application. The court has no competence to find as you expect, and that's the case with an urgent application/interdict in any civilised country. You misunderstand the difference between an urgent application and a regular court case, and then you malign the court and impugn the judge's integrity because he didn't do what your ignorance thnks he could, but under no circumstances could. That is a grave error.

 

[Abe]

The knee-jerk is that it wasn't the judge's decision in an urgent application. The court has no competence to find as you expect, and that's the case with an urgent application/interdict in any civilised country.

I obviously don't expect them to rule in my favour. Which decision are you referring to in the paragraph above?

You misunderstand the difference between an urgent application and a regular court case, and then you malign the court and impugn the judge's integrity because he didn't do what your ignorance thnks he could, but under no circumstances could. That is a grave error.

I am not in the legal profession (which is no doubt obvious). The way I see it, the judge in case I linked had other options. He could, for example, have given the defendants more time to respond to the affidavit request. The case was most certainly urgent as the moment the date was proclaimed, there could be no more registrations and because the date had already been announced, the clock was ticking.

Please don't tell me that you think that judges are above bias? That is an extremely naive point of view. If the law was black and white then they would be no need for lawyers or appeals etc. Judges can look for a reason not to do something (if it suits them) or a reason to do so and still be legally correct.

On the side of the con court, they could have ruled that additional registrations be held in the 90 days as that has been done in the past but chose not to.