Should you be able to give a political party as much money as you please without the rest of us knowing about that? Is that healthy for democracy? That is the crux of the latest round of court cases between My Vote Counts, a civil society organisation, and the government over the Electoral Matters Amendment Act. This act, signed into law earlier in 2024, just in time for the national elections, has sparked significant controversy, particularly concerning the transparency of political party funding.

The case lies in the amendment’s impact on the Political Party Funding Act (PPFA). Before the amendment, the PPFA set clear limits on donations to political parties: an annual cap of R15 million per donor and a requirement to disclose any contributions exceeding R100,000. These provisions were designed to promote transparency and accountability, ensuring that voters could see who was financially influencing political parties.

However, many, including My Vote Counts, see the new amendment as a significant step backward. The organisation argues that the amendment effectively removes these safeguards, creating a loophole that could allow political parties to receive undisclosed donations, potentially leading to corruption. In their view, this undermines the democratic process, as it opens the door for wealthy individuals or entities to exert undue influence on political decisions without public scrutiny. And as we saw with the state capture investigations, it matters a lot who pays our politicians and how. 

In May 2024, the court acknowledged the merit of My Vote Counts’ concerns, highlighting the importance of transparency in maintaining the foundational values of South Africa’s constitutional democracy. The court noted that “secrecy enables corruption,” emphasising that “information on private funding must be compulsorily ‘held’.” Despite this, the court did not immediately declare the amendment unconstitutional or issue an interim interdict. Instead, it issued a rule nisi, requiring all parties to return to court for further arguments.

As the case progresses, My Vote Counts remains steadfast in its mission to protect the integrity of South Africa’s electoral processes. In a statement, the organisation reiterated its commitment to ensuring that political parties operate with transparency: “The removal of limits and the requirement for disclosure of donations over R100,000 poses a significant risk to our democracy. Without these safeguards, we risk allowing unscrupulous funders to operate in the shadows, influencing our politics without accountability.”

The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for South Africa’s political landscape. If the court rules in favour of My Vote Counts, it could lead to a reinstatement of the previous donation limits and transparency requirements, reinforcing the public’s right to know who funds their leaders. On the other hand, if the court upholds the amendment, it could signal a new era where political financing becomes increasingly opaque, potentially eroding public trust in the democratic process.

As the case continues to unfold, South Africans and observers alike will be watching closely, aware that the principles of openness, accountability, and democracy are on trial alongside the legal arguments.