IEC takes no action on DA complaint against Maepa
PRETORIA — The Electoral Commission has declined to take further action on a DA complaint accusing Kgoši Maepa and the ANC of spreading false electoral information, finding insufficient evidence to sustain a prima facie contravention.
Maepa welcomed the outcome on Wednesday, portraying it as the rejection of an attempt to remove him as a candidate in the 2026 local government elections. However, the IEC’s letter expressly states that its decision is not a final determination of the complaint.
The correspondence, dated 20 October and supplied with Maepa’s post, addresses a complaint submitted on 31 August by DA federal council chairperson Ashor Sarupen. Maepa, represented by Maluks Attorneys, and the ANC, through secretary-general Fikile Mbalula, are identified as respondents.
The complaint concerned the alleged dissemination of false and deceptive electoral information, including an apparently AI-generated or synthetic video. The supplied letter does not describe the video’s contents or identify the specific statements challenged by the DA.
The IEC said it appointed law firm Bowman Gilfillan to assist its investigation and assess whether civil proceedings should be instituted before a court, including the Electoral Court. After considering the complaint and submissions from both sides, the commission found that the allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence to sustain a prima facie contravention of section 69(2) of the Municipal Electoral Act or item 9(1)(b) of the Electoral Code of Conduct.
It consequently said it would take no further action. The DA may nevertheless pursue the complaint before a court with competent jurisdiction, following the applicable electoral dispute procedures.
“The Commission has no power to adjudicate the complaints; therefore, this letter should not be construed as a final determination of the complaint,” the correspondence states.
The outcome means the IEC will not pursue enforcement on the evidence assessed. It does not establish that the disputed material was accurate, nor does the supplied letter record a separate ruling on Maepa’s eligibility as a candidate.
Maepa’s claim that the DA tried to remove him therefore goes beyond what the two-page correspondence itself establishes. The letter records the subject of the complaint and the commission’s response, but does not specify the sanction the DA requested.
No DA response to the outcome was available in the material reviewed. Whether the party will pursue court proceedings remains unresolved.
Anyone with additional information can contact the press desk at press@townpress.co.za or drop a tip on our annonymous platform https://tips.townpress.co.za/