APPEAL TO THE STUDENTS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 11.2 OF THE SRC BY-LAWS
PROMULGATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION Of THE STUDENTS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN
11 October 2012
15:00 SAST
INTRODUCTION
The Students' Representative Council (SRC) was tasked with deciding on the appeals lodged against the findings of the SRC Elections Committee under rules 11.2 [1], 11.6 [2] and 11.7 [3] of the SRC By-laws (here attached as annexure 'SA1').
The SRC in dealing with this duty set up a Commission of Enquiry into the 2012/2013 SRC Elections (SRC Commission) whose primary role was to investigate and advise the SRC on these matters. The SRC Commission report is attached as annexure ‘SA2'. The SRC Commission was to report to the SRC on its findings and the SRC was then to take a final decision on the matter. The SRC Commission provided invaluable assistance in allowing the SRC to reach a decision.
It must be noted that the primary role of the SRC is not that of a judicial body. In fulfilling this role the SRC aimed, at all times, to act with integrity and impartiality. In doing this the SRC was cognisant of the commitments laid out in the SRC Constitution to upholding democratic practice, accountability and truth.
The SRC findings are laid out primarily with reference to the work of the SRC Commission as they pertain to the decisions of the SRC Elections Committee. This document in locating the substance of specific appeals and complaints follows largely the format as laid out in the report by the SRC Commission. The SRC notes its indebtedness to the work of the SRC Elections Committee and the SRC Commission.
SUMMARY AND DECISION ON FINDINGS
This document, read with the supporting annexures, provides the findings of the Student Representative Councd of the University of Cape Town:
1. Mass marketing by non student [4]
The SRC upholds the decision of the SRC Elections Committee that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaints against the Democratic Alliance Student Organisation (DASO).
2. Undisclosed campaign plans [5]
The SRC upholds the decision of the SRC Elections Committee that DASO was in breach of clause 6.1.6 of the By-laws.
3. Portable electronic devices [6]
The SRC upholds the decision of the SRC Elections Committee that DASO was in breach of clause 6.1.6 of the By-laws.
4. VULA voting annulment [7]
The SRC upholds the decision of the SRC Elections Committee on the annulment of electronic Vula votes.
5. Intimidation [8]
The SRC upholds the decision of the SRC Elections Committee that insufficient evidence was available to prove a primae facie case regarding the breach of By-laws.
6. Overspending and Undeclared Budget [9]
The SRC upholds the decision of the SRC Elections Committee that DASO was in breach of clause 6.1.6, 6.5 and 6.6 of the By-laws.
In the course of its campaign DASO, its candidates and their campaign teams, violated multiple SRC election rules intended to ensure a free and unbiased environment for voters to cast their ballots. They have been found guilty by the SRC Elections Committee and the SRC Commission of the following:
1. Interfering with vote-casting through the use of unauthorized electronic devices to collect student votes;
2. Grossly overspending far beyond the maximum allowed limits;
3. Attempting to conceal said overspending by fraudulent accounting of costs in submissions to the SRC Elections Committee and;
4. Failing to declare campaign plans to the SRC Elections Committee, including the undeclared showcasing of prominent national politicians to garner attention and votes.
As a result of its findings the SRC Electon Committee sanctioned DASO with a fine, this was appealed to the SRC Commission who found that a fine was inappropriate given the gravity of the offences. The SRC Commission recommended this sanction be made into a sentence of community service for the offending parties along with the suspension of the recognition of DASO over the 2013 election period.
The SRC agrees with the SRC Commission of inquiry that the fine imposed by the SRC Elections Committee was inappropriate and didn't set a strong enough precedent but we reject also the sanctions suggested by the SRC Commission as unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
1. Community service is an arbitrary sanction unrelated to the matter of elections.
2. It would be contradictory on the one hand to recognise the moral blameworthiness of individual candidates through the imposition of community service while at the same time allowing the candidates to be appointed to the highest decision making office for Students at the University. This inference here drawn would taint the good name and reputation of the SRC which is premised on democratic practice,accountability and truth.
3. Such sanctions would be borne primarily by individual candidates yet it is the organisation as a whole and specifically as a well-established party political organization, with private interests and endowed with resources far beyond the means of any opposition independent candidate which allowed these abuses to occur.
4. Such sanctions could be, and in all likelihood would be, struck down as soon as the new SRC took office, an SRC which as it stands would have a DASO majority.
It is therefore the decision of this SRC, in accordance with the SRC By-laws, that the maximum permissible sanction be imposed and that all candidates running under DASO be disqualified from these elections. We hope that this will set a precedent that subversion of the electoral process will not be tolerated at UCT, nor will we allow the political independence of this institution to be undermined in the service of external political agendas.
The SRC thus makes the following rulings:
1. The SRC overturns the decision of the SRC Elections Committee regarding the sanctions concluded on the over expenditure of the DASO elections campaign.
2. The SRC finds that the appropriate sanction for the misconduct detailed in this report and supporting documents is the disqualification of al DASO candidates from the election process and the results thereof.
We further note that any appeal agamst the decision of the SRC must be lodged within 24 hours with the Director of the Office of the Vice Chancellor or nominee in line with SRC By-laws 11.8 which reads:
11.8 An appeal against the SRC decision must be lodged with heads of argument within 24 hours of the publication of decision by the SRC and must be lodged with the Director of Office of the Vice - Chancellor at nominee;
Footnotes:
[1] Rule 11.2 reads:
An appeal from any decision or ruling given by the SRC Elections Committee shall be to the SRC and ultimately to the Vice-Chancellor, whose decision shall be final.
[2] Rule 11.6 reads:
An appeal against the SRC Elections Committee decision must be lodged with heads of argument within 24 hours of the publication of a decision by the SRC Elections Committee and must be lodged with the SRC Secretary General or such member as appointed by the SRC if the Secretary General is contesting the election
[3] Rule 11.7 reads:
The SRC must dispose of the appeal within five unIversity days
[4] Page 6 SRC Commission of Enquiry into the 2012/2013 SRC Elections, UCT SRC 2012
[5] Page 8 ibid.
[6] Page 12 ibid.
[7] Page 16 ibid.
[8] Page 18 ibid.
[9] Page 19 ibid.
Issued by the University of Cape Town Student's Representative Council, October 11 2012. Transcribed from PDF. As such there may be errors in the text.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
