Constitution does not permit Ramaphosa to be undecided in Mchunu case, say MKP lawyers
Image: Timothy Bernard / Independent Newspapers
THE Constitution does not grant President Cyril Ramaphosa the power to suspend. He can only appoint or dismiss and there is nothing in between.
That was the argument advanced by lawyers representing Jacob Zuma's uMkhonto weSizwe before the Constitutional Court on Wednesday.
The party is challenging Ramaphosa's decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on leave of absence and the appointment of Firoz Cachalia in an acting position.
Ramaphosa placed Mchunu on special leave after serious allegations by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that he colluded with a criminal syndicate, accepted illicit payments, interfered in investigations and disbanded a specialised task force into political killings.
The MKP wants Mchunu fired, while also contesting Cachalia's appointment as acting police minister.
Central to the case are questions about the limits of presidential power, the legality of acting appointments and whether Ramaphosa acted rationally when he established a judicial commission of inquiry into serious allegations of criminal infiltration of law enforcement agencies.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in the case brought by the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) against President Cyril Ramaphosa over his alleged protection of under fire police minister Senzo Mchunu.
Image: GCIS
Lawyers representing the MKP argued that Ramaphosa has no right to appoint more than one minister of police at the same time.
MKP legal counsel, Mpati Qofa-Lebakeng, argued that the country's ailing economy cannot afford to have more than one minister and two acting ministers at the same time.
'We have dealt with cost implications related to three ministers of police and two deputy ministers. We are saying in the context of an economy like ours, there is no rational decision that would warrant the President having three Ministers of Police in his Cabinet. The cost implication does not limit itself only to the Minister of police's portfolio. It also goes to the second leg of costs that are occasioned by the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry. We are saying, just on that point alone, there is no way that the cost would be justifiable when the President has taken the decision which has already been alluded to," she argued.
Also, arguing on behalf of the MK Party, Dali Mpofu stated that no President could appoint a minister from outside those who are already in Cabinet.
"We can agree that it is wrong," Mpofu said.
Anton Katz, also on behalf of the MKP argued that Chapter 5 of the Constitution grants no power to suspend, only to appoint or dismiss, saying there was nothing in between.
"There is no vacancy when it comes to ministers, and for this purpose, I want to refer you to Chapter 5 of the Constitution. This part of the Constitution, its wording, content, and purpose, tells us one thing and one thing only: that there is no power to suspend. It is to appoint, dismiss, and nothing in between," he stated.
Arguing for Ramaphosa, Kate Hofmeyr said that the Constitutional Court was the last court of resort, arguing that the MKP had abused the process when it approached the apex court to challenge this matter on an urgent basis.
The powers to assign and appoint ministers also lie with the President, who has done right by the Constitution in this regard, she maintained.
"Former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng spoke out about the monopoly of this court. This court must be concerned about taking this matter. The President has both the powers and an obligation, and he has the right to exercise these powers subject to the strictures of the law," she argued.
Advocate Griffiths Madonsela, arguing for Mchunu, said his client was 'ambushed' by Mkhwanazi's accusations. He said the MKP's response to these allegations was to 'draw their spears' and to 'crucify him'.
Judgment was reserved.
Cape Times
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
8 minutes ago
- The Citizen
MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring violations by Ramaphosa
Zuma and the MK party are clearly unhappy with the apex court's ruling. The MK party has accused the Constitutional Court of ignoring the 'most serious and flagrant constitutional violations perpetrated' by President Cyril Ramaphosa. Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party suffered a blow last week when the apex court dismissed their urgent application to invalidate Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on a leave of absence, appoint Wits law professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and establish a commission of inquiry. Ruling The ConCourt 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. 'The court has considered the application for exclusive jurisdiction and direct access. It has concluded that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and no case has been made out for direct access,' Justice Rammaka Steven Mathopo said. ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else… 'And the following order is made. One, direct access is refused; two, courts are reserved; three, reasons for this order shall be given at a later date. Thank you,' Mathopo said. The ruling cleared the way for Ramaphosa to appoint Cachalia – an appointment made on Friday – and for the Madlanga Commission to proceed with its work. Zuma/MK party not happy Zuma and the MK party are not happy with the apex court's ruling, with the party's national spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela accusing the court of 'turning a blind eye' to the matter. 'To the shock of most South Africans who were under the impression that the rule of law still prevails in this country, the Constitutional Court has unfortunately chosen to turn a blind eye and take the easy way out by hiding behind technicalities, instead of addressing the real issues that have been presented by the MK party. 'The Constitutional Court has effectively sidestepped a clear constitutional crisis by deferring the matter to the High Court, where it may remain for years before potentially returning, well after Ramaphosa's term in office has concluded. In so doing, the apex court has abdicated its responsibility to hold the Executive accountable,' Ndhlela said. The Citizen has contacted the judiciary for comment. This will be included in the article once received. 'Brave efforts' Ndhlela claims the court's decision has disregarded the 'brave efforts of General Mkhwanazi' and many other law-abiding whistleblowers who are committed to fostering a safer, crime-free South Africa. 'The MK party will not be easily discouraged from demanding accountability. We are considering all available peaceful options to do so.' As the next step, the party, through its attorneys, demanded the resignation of Ramaphosa for 'repeatedly violating his oath of office', giving him until 10am on Friday to do so, or it would take action against him. 'Two police ministers' The party also demanded that Ramaphosa give reasons 'why South Africans must pay for two police ministers and fund an illegal Commission of Inquiry'. 'Ramaphosa is also required to respond to a list of 15 questions by Friday, 8th August 2025, concerning the current constitutional turmoil, which has been fuelled by his attempt to shield his ally, Mr. Senzo Mchunu, from a justified removal from Cabinet in exchange for protection related to the CR17 and Phala Phala criminal activities,' Ndhlela said. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The letter said, irrespective of the answers Ramaphosa provides, his actions to place Mchunu on leave and appoint Cachalia remain 'illegal'. Chief justice Ndhlela said the MK party will be sending another letter to the Chief Justice [Mandisa Maya] requesting the urgent provision of the outstanding reasons for the order handed down last Thursday. 'Once all the necessary information and reasons have been received from Mr. Ramaphosa and the apex court, the way forward will be determined and communicated publicly. 'The MK party is adamant that it is in the country's best interest that Mr. Ramaphosa resigns with immediate effect. Any political party or member of Parliament who intends to vote against the MK party's forthcoming motion of no Confidence towards Ramaphosa should be prepared to face the justified anger of South Africans,' Ndhlela said. Ndhlela added that the MK party will continue to organise 'peaceful demonstrations in support of General Mkhwanazi and to strengthen the call for Ramaphosa's removal.' ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
The Herald
8 minutes ago
- The Herald
BLA slams absence of attorneys as evidence leaders at Madlanga commission
The Black Lawyers Association (BLA) says it finds the appointment of advocates and the exclusion of attorneys as evidence leaders in the Madlanga commission of inquiry ' shocking, embarrassing and discriminatory' to the attorneys profession. The association made this comment in a letter to judge Mbuyiseli Madlanga after the judge announced the team of professionals to assist the commission's work last week. 'We note that an all-advocate team has been appointed to the exclusion of attorneys,' Takalani Chris Mamathuntsha, secretary-general of the BLA, said in the letter dated July 29. President Cyril Ramaphosa appointed the commission to investigate criminality, political interference and corruption in the criminal justice system last month after explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. Mkhwanazi accused police minister Senzo Mchunu of interfering with police investigations and overstepping his role when he ordered the disbandment of the political killings task team . Mamathuntsha said there was no consultation with the leadership of the BLA on how this team was to be composed, or at least for guidance. 'The attorneys profession has contributed immensely to South Africa's jurisprudence on the bench post our democratic elections.' He said the profession, particularly members of both BLA and the National Association of Democratic Lawyers, had made themselves available for appointment to the judiciary and today were serving in all superior courts. 'We call on (Madlanga) to reconsider his decision of excluding the attorneys profession as it's sending a message to the public that attorneys are inferior to the task.' He said at the centre of the outcry was the missed opportunity of empowerment of attorneys and a pattern that appeared to recycle lucrative briefs among some practitioners. 'We await your urgent replies as mandated by our members.' TimesLIVE
The Herald
8 minutes ago
- The Herald
SACP dual members have rights and duties to the ANC, Ramaphosa warns
The ANC constitution states that standing for election for local, provincial or national government, or acting as the election agent or canvasser for a person standing in such an election for any political party — and in opposition to a candidate endorsed by the ANC national executive committee or provincial executive committees — constitutes a misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be instituted. The SACP has been battling with the ANC for a more dominant role in the alliance that grants influence on policy. In its last congress in December, the party said it now requires a popular left front to build more influence on the ground and in the 'battle for ideas' for a progressive alternative to neoliberalism. The SACP said this will require reaching out to like-minded groupings and organisations beyond the comfort zone of alliance partners, including trade unions in various federations, progressive NGOs and research bodies. The party said these groupings would share a vision on the fight for a universal basic income grant, for a huge public employment programme, campaigns against identified budget cuts of particular relevance to working people and the poor, and building on the financial sector campaign. Ramaphosa said the NEC held in-depth discussions over the SACP, adding the ANC recognised the SACP as an independent political organisation that has the right to contest elections as it sees fit. 'As the ANC, we have no wish, nor do we have any attention, to interfere with the decision that the SACP has taken. However, as we have indicated to the SACP, our ally, we disagree with the decision. We believe that this decision has fundamental implications for the strategy and programme of the National Democratic Revolution and the alliance that has led the struggle for liberation in our country since the 1920s. 'While the alliance between the SACP and the ANC has spanned the better part of a century, this is not about the past. It is not about nostalgia. As the ANC, we are seriously concerned that this decision taken by the SACP to participate in elections in their own name and right will significantly weaken the forces for national democratic change.' Ramaphosa said the ANC would seek to engage with the SACP on how to run the elections. 'We will go out from this meeting to explain our position to our structures at every level of our organisation, so that comrades, members of the ANC, are empowered to explain the challenge this poses to our transformation agenda.' Speaking at the SACP's 104th anniversary at KwaDlangezwa in KwaZulu-Natal on Sunday, its general secretary, Solly Mapaila, lashed out at the ANC saying he was tired of attending meaningless meetings with the ANC. 'If you go to the meeting with the people you know will not implement what you agreed upon, there is something wrong with you,' he said.
