The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) has officially rejected the application for registration of the Islamic State of Africa (ISA) as a political party.
This decision marks a significant moment in South Africa’s political landscape, reflecting deep concerns about the party’s alleged links to terrorism and its controversial constitutional principles.

The ISA’s application was met with immediate scrutiny following reports linking its key figure, Durban businessman Farhad Hoomer, to terrorism-related allegations.
Hoomer has faced legal proceedings in South African courts over accusations related to recruitment, kidnapping, extortion, and robbery activities that purportedly support terrorist organisations financially.

In 2022, the United States Department of the Treasury designated Hoomer as a specially designated global terrorist.
Several of his businesses were also added to the US Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals list, further intensifying the international spotlight on his activities.

Against this backdrop, the IEC’s decision to reject the ISA’s registration application was based on three critical grounds.

Firstly, the party failed to meet the required threshold of support from registered voters.
South African electoral regulations mandate that any new political party must submit signatures from at least 300 registered voters, including their full names and signatures, to demonstrate genuine backing.
The ISA did not provide sufficient valid signatures to meet this requirement.

Secondly, the party’s public notice of its registration application was published only in a newspaper with limited circulation confined to parts of the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality.
The IEC emphasised that the purpose of such publication is to ensure broad awareness among the geographic area associated with the party’s intended registration.
Publishing the notice in a newspaper with limited reach was deemed inadequate to alert the public effectively.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the IEC received over 200 objections from individuals and organisations.
These objectors argued that the ISA’s constitution promotes the adoption of policies based on Sharia law.
This aspect of the party’s constitution was seen as fundamentally incompatible with South Africa’s secular and inclusive constitutional order.

South Africa’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but it also upholds the principles of secular governance and inclusivity.
The IEC’s spokesperson, Kate Bapela, explained that registering a party whose constitution advocates for Sharia law could cause serious offence to segments of the population and undermine the country’s foundational values.

The objections submitted highlighted fears that the ISA’s policies could threaten the pluralistic nature of South African society.
South Africa is a diverse nation with multiple faiths, cultures, and traditions coexisting.
Any political agenda perceived to impose religious law on the entire population raises concerns about discrimination and exclusion.

The IEC’s rejection of the ISA’s application is not the end of the road for the party.
They have the right to appeal the decision within 30 days, potentially taking the matter to the courts.
This legal process could prolong the debate around the party’s legitimacy and its place within South Africa’s democratic framework.

The controversy surrounding the ISA also reignites broader discussions about the limits of political expression and association in South Africa.
While democracy encourages a wide range of political views and parties, there are boundaries when it comes to upholding constitutional values and protecting national security.

The case of Farhad Hoomer and the ISA raises important questions about how South Africa balances these competing interests.
On one hand, citizens have the right to form political parties and express their beliefs.
On the other, the state has a duty to prevent organisations linked to terrorism or extremist ideologies from gaining political legitimacy.

Public reaction to the IEC’s decision has been mixed but largely supportive of the move to block the ISA.
Many South Africans have expressed relief that a party with alleged terrorist connections and controversial policies will not be allowed to participate in elections.

At the same time, some voices caution against infringing on political freedoms and warn that the appeal process must be fair and transparent.
The situation underscores the delicate balance between security concerns and democratic rights.

The IEC’s rigorous vetting process and responsiveness to public objections demonstrate the institution’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of South Africa’s electoral system.
Ensuring that political parties adhere to constitutional principles is crucial for fostering trust in democratic processes.

This episode also highlights the importance of vigilance against the infiltration of extremist elements into mainstream politics.
South Africa, like many countries, faces threats from various radical groups seeking to exploit political platforms for their agendas.

The IEC’s rejection of the ISA sends a clear message that such attempts will be scrutinised and, where necessary, blocked to protect the nation’s democratic values.

As the ISA considers its next steps, South Africans are encouraged to engage in the ongoing conversation about political participation, security, and constitutional rights.
You can share your views by leaving a comment below or sending a WhatsApp message to 060 011 021 1.

For continuous updates on this and other important political developments, subscribe to The South African website’s newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky.

In conclusion, the IEC’s decision to block the Islamic State of Africa’s registration as a political party is a landmark moment reflecting South Africa’s commitment to safeguarding its democracy from extremist influences.
While the party retains the right to appeal, the grounds for rejection underscore the importance of upholding constitutional values in the face of controversial and potentially harmful ideologies.

This case serves as a reminder that democracy entails both rights and responsibilities.
It requires constant vigilance to ensure that political participation strengthens, rather than undermines, the principles of freedom, equality, and inclusivity that define South Africa’s constitutional order.