ConCourt dismisses MK Party's case on Mchunu, Madlanga commission
Earlier on Wednesday Zuma's counsel, Dali Mpofu SC, was questioned by several judges on which constitutional obligation the president had failed to fulfil in this case. He said the president had failed to uphold and defend the constitution. This, coupled with his failure to fulfil other obligations, brought it within the court's exclusive jurisdiction, he argued.
Mpofu was pressed by some of the justices as to exactly which other obligations the president had failed on. He said when the president was given powers, such as the power to assign acting functions, they went hand in hand with obligations. So when the president assigned the police minister's powers to Cachalia, he had an obligation to ensure these powers were assigned lawfully.
On direct access, Hofmeyr said 'many cases involve matters of grave constitutional significance', but the constitutional scheme directed that they begin in the high court.
The ConCourt had spoken in earlier judgments of its crippling workload, she said. 'If this court can be the court that every litigant comes to when it alleges there has been some irregular exercise of power by the president, all the other cases that legitimately must be here get shifted down the roll.' This had implications for the administration of justice, she added.
Unless the ConCourt 'sets its limits in this case, we would say the administration of justice more broadly may be imperilled', said Hofmeyr.
TimesLIVE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
3 hours ago
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party file urgent court bid to challenge Ramaphosa's Mchunu decision
The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party have not given up the fight and have lodged an urgent application against President Cyril Ramaphosa in the High Court in Pretoria. The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. What Zuma wants In the notice of motion, Zuma and his party want the high court to declare Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave. They also want the appointment of Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry to be declared invalid, null and void and unconstitutional and set aside. ConCourt ruling The ConCourt on 31 July 2025 ruled that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. 'This matter does not fall within this court's exclusive jurisdiction. Very few matters do, and this is not one of them. 'Any allegation that the power was exercised unlawfully falls under our constitutional scheme to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to consider first. Additionally, there is no pressing need for this court, on 10 days' notice, to decide the issues in this matter as a court of first and last instance,' Hofmeyr said. This basically means that Zuma and the MK party had to approach the high court first, which they have now done. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The court ruling was handed down two hours after it hosted a special ceremonial sitting for retiring Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, whom Ramaphosa appointed to chair a commission to probe explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) top cop Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanzi of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system. Constitutional matter In his founding affidavit to the high court, Zuma said he is bringing the application in his personal capacity, but because the application is urgent and in the 'interest of justice' he is also deposing the papers on behalf of the MK party. 'The twin purposes of this application are to re-assert the merits of the application which were left unadjudicated by the Constitutional Court on account of its findings on exclusive jurisdiction and direct access; and to raise new grounds of illegality and irrationality based on events which arose post the 30 July 2025 hearing in the Constitutional Court,' Zuma argues. Zuma said that the present application is indisputably a constitutional matter. Section 169(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that the High Court of South Africa may decide any constitutional matter except a matter that the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear by way of direct access or is assigned by legislation to another court of a status similar to the High Court. 'This is such a matter because the Constitutional Court, rightly or in my view wrongly, declined to grant direct access. That decision must be respected as a fact until or unless it is set aside,' Zuma said. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring 'most serious' violations by Ramaphosa Urgency In his papers, Zuma argues that in his Constitutional Court application, Ramaphosa did not contest the urgency, exclusive jurisdiction, and/or direct access. 'The president sought and was allowed to opportunistically hide behind those technicalities to escape much-needed judicial accountability for the unjustifiable multiple breaches of the rule of law. There are no more hiding places. 'The serious and unprecedented revelations of alleged criminality made by Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi, as another highly qualified whistleblower, in the tradition of former Intelligence Chief Arthur Fraser, can no longer be ignored or swept under the carpet at the request of the president,' Zuma argued. Zuma explains that the urgency of the application is 'clearly not self-created, and it can never be reasonably asserted that relief may be obtained in due course.' 'The impugned commission has already commenced and continues to operate at huge cost to the taxpayer. In the (unlikely) event of its delivering a final report in six months' time, the matter would still not have been heard in due course.' Cachalia Zuma also argues that Cachalia has since assumed office and will be 'making decisions which affect the security of the people of South Africa' while Mchunu 'who has been illegally placed on leave of absence by the president continues to earn a salary and enjoy other expensive privileges such as bodyguards, drivers, free ministerial accommodation, air travel domestic workers and the like.' 'It is trite that the matter involves very serious and unprecedented allegations of executive and judicial capture which, if true, constitute a threat to the very democracy prevailing in South Africa. 'It is impossible to imagine a greater catastrophe than that which would transpire if the allegations are true and the matter is not heard as one of the utmost urgency. In relation to the question of urgency, the merits must be regarded as true and proven,' Zuma argues. Senzo Mchunu Zuma also argues that there is 'no express legal provision which empowers Ramaphosa to place a minister on leave of absence. 'The respondents can therefore only rely on an implied power which is said to flow from the power to dismiss. 'It will be argued that the decision does not pass the reasonable necessity test because the power to dismiss in section 91(2) must not be confused with the power to dismiss an employee,' he said. 'Financial benefit' Zuma said the appointment of Cachalia is 'totally incoherent' and false explanations given by Ramaphosa in 'respect of this decision owe to the fact that it is rooted in improper motives and bad faith'. 'Its purpose if to grant undue financial benefits to Minister Mchunu at the expense of the taxpayer and to shield him from accountability and well-deserved dismissal or removal from the Cabinet. 'In explaining this appointment, the president has performed both somersaults and backflips in a series of incompatible volte face manoeuvres, all pointing to sheer irrationality,' Zuma argued. In his papers, Zuma argued that following the swearing in of the acting police minister, both Ramaphosa and Cachalia gave media interviews, with differing accounts of his official title and status. Questions to Ramaphosa Zuma's attorneys sent a letter to Ramaphosa on 4 August 2025, posing 15 unanswered questions regarding his actions and justifications. Zuma said Ramaphosa's response was 'inadequate'. 'Given the public importance of the issues and the imminence of the 1 August date for the assumption of office by Professor Cachalia, the matter cries out for direct access.' ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else… Madlanga Commission Zuma also argues that there is no legal provision which is capable of endowing the president with the power to confer upon the Madlanga Commission the powers which are reserved to the Judicial Service and/or Magistrates' Commissions, to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of members of the judiciary. 'There are specific and well-accepted policy reasons why such powers are exclusively reserved for the bodies referred to above. These include the preservation of the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the judiciary.' The matter is expected to heard on 26 August 2025. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
The Citizen
3 hours ago
- The Citizen
‘We are truly sorry': Open Chats Podcast issues apology to coloured community after backlash
This is the second apology the Open Chats Podcast issued, after the first failed to calm the storm. The Open Chats Podcast team has released an apology to the coloured community and all South Africans after intense backlash over racist remarks made during episode 128. The controversy sparked national outrage, legal action and calls for cancellation. Now, the hosts are taking public steps toward accountability and education. Backlash over episode Episode 128 of the Open Chat Podcast ignited a firestorm. Remarks made about the coloured community were widely condemned as racist, sexist and deeply offensive. The clip quickly went viral, drawing outrage across social media. This prompted the Patriotic Alliance (PA) to file charges against the hosts. The controversy escalated when old tweets from PA leader and sports minister Gayton McKenzie were shared, showing him using the K-word. This sparked renewed debate and even calls for his resignation. The fallout spread far beyond the original podcast audience. It turned into a national talking point. ALSO READ: Zuma's former fiancée LaConco makes acting debut in Mzansi Magic's 'Genesis' Previous apology rejected The podcast's initial apology failed to calm the storm. Many South Africans viewed it as insincere, with TikTok users posting videos criticising the tone and delivery. The backlash only deepened calls for cancellation and heightened demands for genuine accountability. This week, in episode 131, the hosts released a new apology. They say it is 'serious, unreserved, and from the heart'. 'We take full accountability' 'We wish to unconditionally and unreservedly apologise for the hurt and harm we caused to the coloured community and South Africa at large. Our statements in episode 128 were racist, sexist, unfortunate, irresponsible, reckless, and unAfrican. We take full accountability for our utterances,' the Open Chats team said. The team acknowledged that their words had caused 'outrage and offence' across racial lines. They recognised that their right to freedom of expression could not be exercised in ways that stripped others of their dignity. Content removed and call for calm Episode 128 has since been removed from all official platforms. However, the hosts expressed regret that clips continue to circulate independently. They urged the public to stop sharing the content to prevent further harm. They have also committed to undergoing formal education on race relations at a reputable higher-learning institution, to ensure such incidents are not repeated. Working with the Human Rights Commission While the team had initially intended to approach the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) on their own, several political parties had already taken that step. The podcast's legal team is now liaising with the SAHRC to reach a resolution. They said they will comply fully with any directives issued. In a direct appeal to political parties critical of the podcast, the hosts invited open dialogue. They suggested a recorded discussion could take place in the future. Plea for forgiveness Closing their statement, the Open Chats Podcast hosts expressed remorse. 'We are disappointed with ourselves and the blatant disregard we showed when talking about a vulnerable group of people. We remain remorseful and request the forgiveness of the coloured community of South Africa. We are truly sorry for the damage we've caused.'
The Herald
5 hours ago
- The Herald
ANC under pressure in Free State, Mpumalanga — 'only Limpopo, Eastern Cape safe'
The ANC could be in for a major provincial shake-up in 2029. Researchers say the party could lose more provinces in the next general election and only retain Limpopo and the Eastern Cape. New research from the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (Mistra) suggests its support in Mpumalanga and the Free State is waning. Susan Booysen, author of the Mistra Coalitions Barometer II, said: 'Mpumalanga and the Free State could be on the verge of provincial coalition governments. 'Only Limpopo and the Eastern Cape seem to be secure now. If election trends continue, other provinces could possibly have coalition governments after the next election.' Listen:
