![The market-builder who restrained the market [Part 2]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/PHOTO-2026-08-25-17-16-32-360x180.jpg)
![The merchant preceding the Prophetic mission [Part 1]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/01-360x180.jpg)
BREAKING NEWS:
New High Court directives have reset the Mowbray Cemetery’s nomination process, barring direct election to office-bearing posts and limiting grounds on which nominees may be excluded ahead of the August 23 special general meeting of the Moslem Cemetery Board (MCB).
By ANWAR OMAR
On July 24, 2026, the Independent Panel of Conveners and Electoral Officers appointed under a June 4, 2026 Judicial Case Management Order, issued by Justice Gayaat Da Silva Salie, opened nominations for 11 board members for the Mowbray Cemetery, including eight office-bearers, ahead of a Special General Meeting (SGM) of the MCB set for August 23, 2026. The deadline for the submission of completed nomination forms is Monday August 10.
The Panel’s move raised four concerns flagged by Muslim Views, which the Court substantially answered within hours.
The Court intervenes
On Wednesday, July 29, 2026, the Court issued “Judicial Case Management Directives” to “facilitate the orderly implementation” of its March 24, 2026 judgment and the upcoming SGM. The directives made no reference to specific correspondence or complaints and appear to form part of the Court’s ongoing supervision rather than a direct reply to concerns raised.
The directives were issued within hours of written objections to the Panel’s nomination criteria, including a request for comment from this publication. Whether that timing reflects a direct response or just the Court’s case-management schedule is not stated. Regardless of the trigger, the directive explicitly settles several of the exact questions this publication raised about the Panel’s criteria.
You may also want to read
Direct election of office-bearers
On this issue, the Court agreed with the Constitution’s original two-phase structure, a concern flagged by this publication. Its directive is explicit: “Nominations shall be invited for election of 11 (eleven) board members of the Mowbray Cemetery Board. Candidates shall not be nominated or elected to specific office-bearing positions. The office-bearers of the Board shall thereafter be determined by the newly elected board and in accordance with the 1948 Constitution.”
This overturns the Panel’s July 24 Call for Nominations, which had invited direct election into eight specific positions. Instead, the Board will be elected first as 11 members, exactly as Clauses 5–13 and 21 of the 1948 Constitution provide. Office-bearers will then be chosen internally by the new Board under Clause 14.
Nomination signature threshold
On this point, the Court sided with the Panel and expressly authorised its July 24 rule. The directive states: “Notwithstanding clause 21 of the 1948 Constitution, a nomination shall … be valid where … the candidate is nominated by at least one registered member.” That confirms, with explicit judicial backing, the single-nominator threshold. What looked like an unexplained departure from Clause 21(b)’s three-signatory rule is now a deliberate, court-authorised variation.
Preferred Candidate Profile, years of service and Islamic knowledge requirements
The Court rejected the Panel’s shortlisting criteria completely. In fact, it ruled that they cannot be used to disqualify anyone. The directive lists six specific grounds the Panel may use to assess whether a nominee qualifies for the shortlist:
• registered membership;
• valid nomination;
• solvency;
• absence of relevant convictions;
• integrity and independence; and
• commitment to serving the Mowbray Cemetery and its community.
There is no mention of years of service or Islamic knowledge. The directive is also unambiguous: “The absence of any particular professional qualification, period of experience or field of expertise shall not, on its own, disqualify a nominee.” That effectively strips the “Preferred Candidate Profile” of any weight as shortlisting criteria, directly addressing a key concern this publication raised.
Areas of expertise
On this one, the Court took a middle position. It didn’t remove skills-based criteria altogether. Instead, the directive says the Panel may “have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the Board … collectively possesses an appropriate range of skills, knowledge and experience”, but cannot use that, on its own, to disqualify a nominee. In short, expertise can inform how the Board is shaped, but not be used as an exclusionary filter.
Finally, the directive closes any ambiguity: “Save as modified by this Directive, the nomination and election process shall be conducted in accordance with the 1948 Constitution.” This reaffirms a concern this publication raised: the founding Constitution, not Panel discretion, remains the default framework.
Finally, the directive removes any ambiguity: “Save as modified by this Directive, the nomination and election process shall be conducted in accordance with the 1948 Constitution.” In other words, the 1948 Constitution – not Panel discretion – is still the default position. That affirms a central point this publication has consistently raised.
The way forward
As it stands, the Panel’s July 24 Call for Nominations conflicts with the Court’s July 29 directive, certainly on office-bearers, and arguably on the use of the Preferred Candidate Profile in shortlisting.
Muslim Views spoke to Igshaan Higgins, the Panel chairperson, and he confirmed that the Panel expects to issue an amended Call for Nominations as soon as the directive is clarified with the judge.
