The EFF is the first political party to openly campaign that a law must be passed forcing political parties to reveal who their founders are. This is the most significant principle towards transparency.

We therefore opposed the Political Party Funding Bill mainly due to section 10 which reads:

“No person or entity may deliver a donation to a member of a politics party other than for party political purposes”.

This provision will lead to a limitation and possible violation of the constitutional rights to freedom of of association. In essence it would create a situation where no one would join a political party as they would forfeit a right to receive a donation unless it is used for political party purposes. An example is that a hungry person who is a member of a political party cannot accept a donation of a loaf of bread / or an individual or entity cannot donate a loaf of bread to a person who is a member of a political party.

Under this law, all poor people whose lives rely on the culture of donations, mostly amongst each, will not join or form political parties. They will not do so as it will mean they can no longer donate or take donations of food, clothes or shelter. The poor live through donations, they are always giving things to each other for free.

This law says if they take political party membership, they can no longer take donation unless such donation are for political party purposes. In a long run, this lead to a situation where we will never have parliamentarian from amongst the poor as they will not form or join parties due to this law.

We have proposed that the clause should instead read: “No person or entity may deliver a donation MADE TO A POLITICAL PARTY to a member of that political party other than for party political purposes.”

The EFF would otherwise support the bill in the interest of the principle of transparency it establishes. We have made an effort to all political parties to amend this section toward the NCOP concurrence process. Should the NCOP still pass it with this clause unaltered, we will have no choice but to approach the constitutional court to declare it unconstitutional.