Independent candidates will only need to obtain 1 000 signatures to register for next year's provincial and national elections, following a ruling by the Constitutional Court on Monday.

The apex court did, however, dismiss the other challenges against the controversial Electoral Amendment Act.

Two organisations, One South Africa (OSA) and the Independent Candidates Association (ICA), lodged challenges to the Act's constitutionality in June and July this year.

The gist of both challenges was that the Act did not treat independent candidates and parties equally.

The ICA's challenge is based on the fact that only 200 of the National Assembly's 400 seats are available to independent candidates, and will create an "unfair election, distorts proportionality, and reduces the value of votes cast in favour of independent candidates for no reason, let alone a convincing reason".

OSA's challenge deals with the number of signatures independent candidates and new parties require to register. Current parties only had to obtain 1 000 signatures to register, while independent candidates needed 15% of the number of votes required to obtain a seat in the previous elections in the province they were registering in.

They also questioned the constitutionality of the complicated way seats would be recalculated when vacancies occurred, arguing that it benefitted the bigger parties and that it treated those who voted for parties differently from those who voted for independents.

Their applications were opposed by Parliament, and Home Affairs Minister Aaron Motsoaledi.

The Electoral Commission of South Africa filed a notice to abide, but also made submissions to the court.

Arguments were heard in August.

A unanimous ruling, penned by Justice Nonkosi Mhlantla, dismissed the ICA's application after finding the ICA did not establish that the impugned legislation was irrational or violated any right in the Bill of Rights - and, therefore, should be dismissed, said Justice Mhlantla.

A majority of the apex court's judges also dismissed OSA's challenge to the constitutionality of the recalculation method.

However, a majority decision, penned by Justice Jody Kollapen, found that the 15% signature requirement goes beyond being a mere requirement and was a limitation of a right. It would place a burden on independent candidates.

Justice Kollapen said:

The limitation is not justifiable.

The court ordered that the Act be amended to remove the 15% requirement and be replaced with a provision that 1 000 signatures were required for independent candidates and new parties, as was the case for new parties previously.

Parliament was given 24 months to remedy this in the Act.

However, a minority judgment, penned by Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, found that OSA didn't substantiate why the 15% signature requirement was a barrier or why it was unfair.

The majority decision, of course, is the one that matters.

In the ICA matter, the court did not make a cost order - and, in the OSA matter, the court awarded OSA partial costs.