Legal showdown over looser political donation laws in South Africa

Civil watchdog My Vote Counts (MVC) has launched two separate legal challenges in an effort to overturn a High Court ruling that dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of South Africa’s Political Funding Act (PFA).

The first seeks direct approval from the Constitutional Court to appeal, while the second, conditional on the first being denied, would take the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The outcome of the Constitutional Court application will determine whether the second challenge proceeds.

At the centre of South Africa’s political financing regime is the PFA, first introduced in 2021 to regulate the funding of political parties and promote transparency.

It established rules for the disclosure of donations, limits on contributions, and oversight mechanisms, aiming to reduce undue influence and corruption in politics.

MVC’s legal team challenged the PFA as unconstitutional, arguing that significant loopholes exist, undermining transparency and accountability.

They pointed out that the law (before it was amended):

• Allows donations below R100,000 to remain anonymous;
• Exempts certain individuals from reporting requirements;
• Places no limits on combined donations from related parties;
• Permits single donations of up to R15 million from one entity; and
• Grants the President wide discretion over disclosure rules.

MVC submitted that these issues conflict with constitutional principles of openness and accountability.

The group said that this creates opportunities for secrecy, excessive influence, and potential abuse, undermining transparency and accountability in political funding that the PFA promised.

Yet, many political parties have bemoaned the Act’s disclosure requirements, arguing that it decreases incentive to donate to political parties.

“The implementation of the Act has… led to a significant drop in private funding for many political parties, making it challenging for them to meet operational costs,” said Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana at the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC’s) Symposium on Political Funding in South Africa.

Around the same time of MVC’s constitutional challenge was proceeding in the High Court, in May 2025, following a draft resolution from the Portfolio Committee, Parliament voted to double the disclosure threshold and upper donation limit to R200,000 and R30 million respectively.

The National Assembly’s resolution was sent to the President, who on 18 August 2025 issued a proclamation adopting the new limits, which took effect immediately, without explanation or supporting evidence.

Just three days later, on 21 August 2025, the Western Cape High Court dismissed MVC’s application in full.

The Court held that the President’s proclamation rendered parts of the challenge moot, that disclosure thresholds and donation limits are legislative facts courts should avoid interfering with, and that Parliament lawfully delegated power to the President.

It also labeled the challenge as vague and speculative, lacking clear definitions or evidence.

“This ruling will deepen secrecy in political funding and make it easier for private interests to influence our politics and for corruption to occur,” said MVC following the judgment.

Godongwana said that “transparency is at the heart of party-political funding. To make informed choices when voting, voters need to know who is behind the funding of political parties and what agendas they are pursuing.”

Yet, the Minister warned that loopholes and weak enforcement in the current framework continue to threaten the integrity of democratic processes.

“Challenges remain in enforcement, local transparency, and curbing illicit financing,” said Godongwana.

See MVC’s CC papers here and HC papers here.

We do not know where 78% of the ANC’s private funding came from

MVC asks for reasons for doubling the disclosure threshold and annual donation limit

In a separate, but related process, MVC wrote to the President requesting ‘written reasons for, and the complete record that informed, the President’s Proclamation and the decision to determine the new thresholds’ in the PFA.

Bregman said that they had requested a response by 20 October 2025.

MVC also made a formal Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) request for any and all documents that informed the President’s Proclamation, including:

“Inter alia, briefing notes, memoranda, analyses or impact assessments, correspondence or consultations with the IEC or other state bodies, public or stakeholder submissions, draft versions of the President’s Proclamation, and any legal opinions or approvals relied upon.”