![Missed calls, Wimbledon: How Firoz Cachalia nearly missed out police minister gig [video]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesouthafrican.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2025%2F07%2FUntitled-design-2025-07-15T131146.887.jpg.optimal.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Missed calls, Wimbledon: How Firoz Cachalia nearly missed out police minister gig [video]
President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that Cachalia will step into the role while Police Minister Senzo Mchunu takes a leave of absence. This comes amid the launch of investigations into alleged corruption.
Cachalia, who chairs the National Anti-Corruption Advisory Council (NACAC), says the task ahead is daunting, but he will tackle it head-on.
In an interview with Newzroom Afrika , Cachalia recounted the moment he received the all-important call from the president. It turns out the presidency had some difficulty reaching him.
The NACAC chair said he was watching Wimbledon with his wife while his phone was charging in another room. After several missed calls, the presidency attempted to contact his brother, Justice Azhar Cachalia, and eventually managed to get hold of his wife.
After numerous attempts, Ramaphosa finally connected with him.
'I was ignoring the phone, actually. I'm not going to be able to do that anymore,' Cachalia joked.
Cachalia said he has been politically active from a young age and that the development of society remains his passion. He admitted he was surprised to be offered the position but felt deeply humbled by the opportunity.
He added that he is grateful the president has shown confidence in his ability to serve.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11.
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
an hour ago
- Eyewitness News
ANC rubbishes criticism against Ramaphosa's decision to launch SAPS corruption inquiry
JOHANNESBURG - The African National Congress (ANC) has hit back at criticism against President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to launch a commission of inquiry into maladministration and corruption in the police service. Ramaphosa has come under fire from some political parties and civil groups who have called the pending inquiry a long walk to justice. ALSO READ: ANC shuts down calls for arrests of govt officials, top cops implicated by Mkhwanazi KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi made sweeping claims about infiltration, collusion and political interference in police operations. He named Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu as a co-conspirator of wrongdoing. Mchunu and National Deputy Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya have both been placed on special leave pending the probe into police conduct. ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula addressed the tough reaction to the establishment of the inquiry at a media briefing at Luthuli House on Tuesday. 'In a society faced with criminality, a demand for instant justice is understandable, but it must not come at the expense of legal credibility. South Africa's Constitution demands that even the fight against corruption be conducted within the bounds of legality, transparency, and fairness.'
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Taxpayers to fund Mchunu's R2. 69 million salary during suspension
Taxpayers will continue to fund Police Minister Senzo Mchunu's full salary of R2.69 million while he is suspended amid a presidential inquiry into serious corruption allegations Taxpayers will face an increased financial burden as Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, currently on special leave, is set to continue receiving his full annual salary of R2.69 million. This decision comes in light of a presidential commission of inquiry announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa, which could take between three to six months to conclude. Despite being off duty, Mchunu will continue to earn his full annual salary of R2.69 million, which translates to approximately R224 166.67 per month. During the inquiry period, Professor Firoz Cachalia from Wits University has been appointed to act as the interim Minister of Police. While Cachalia's exact remuneration package has not been officially confirmed, it is expected that he will receive a ministerial-level salary during his acting term. If Cachalia serves as acting minister, he is expected to earn a monthly salary equivalent to that of a full Cabinet minister, approximately R224 166.67. This means he would receive around R672 500 over three months, and up to R1.35 million if the inquiry stretches to six months. This effectively means the Ministry of Police will cost the state nearly R1.35 million in salaries over three months, and up to R2.69 million if the inquiry extends to six months. A minister's total remuneration includes a basic salary component that is equal to 60% of the total package, which constitutes the pensionable salary. Each public servant is paid R120 000 per annum, including in their basic salary. The Presidency said that this amount is subject to the Income Tax Act. An employer's pension benefit contribution is equal to 22.5% of pensionable salary.
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
Appointment of the acting minister Cachalia: A matter of presidential authority and constitutional compliance
Anda Mbikwana is a PhD candidate and a municipal finance and leadership in governance expect, he writes in his personal capacity. President Cyril Ramaphosa's appointment of Professor Firoz Cachalia as Acting Minister of Police, following the placement of Senzo Mchunu on special leave, presents a significant constitutional law question that warrants careful examination. The central issue is whether the President's action complies with the constitutional framework governing ministerial appointments, particularly the distinction between regular ministerial appointments and the delegation of ministerial functions. Section 91(3)(c) of the Constitution provides the President with the authority to "select no more than two Ministers from outside the National Assembly." This provision establishes a clear numerical limitation and procedural requirement for appointing individuals who are not Members of Parliament to ministerial positions. Section 98 states: "The President may assign to a Minister any power or function of another Minister who is absent or otherwise unable to fulfil the functions of office." This section contemplates the temporary reallocation of ministerial responsibilities between existing Ministers. The constitutional analysis reveals a potential lacuna in the framework. Section 91(3)(c) makes no express provision for "Acting Ministers" - it only addresses substantive ministerial appointments. Section 98, conversely, only permits the assignment of functions to existing Ministers, not to individuals outside the cabinet structure. Professor Cachalia's appointment presents several constitutional challenges: Absence of Constitutional Authority: There is no explicit constitutional provision authorising the appointment of an "Acting Minister" who is not already a substantive Minister. Misapplication of Section 98: The section requires the assignment of functions to "a Minister" - a constitutional office that Cachalia does not hold. Circumvention of Section 91(3)(c): The appointment appears to bypass the formal requirements for appointing Ministers from outside the National Assembly. The constitutional concern is compounded by an institutional presumption of legality. The legal fraternity's assumption that presidential decisions are inherently constitutional represents a classic appeal to authority fallacy. Constitutional supremacy requires that all exercises of public power, including presidential appointments, conform to constitutional requirements regardless of the office holder's status. The appointment raises broader questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law. If the President can effectively create ministerial positions without following constitutional procedures, it undermines the constitutional framework designed to limit and structure executive power. For the appointment to achieve constitutional compliance, the following procedure should be followed: Formal Ministerial Appointment: Cachalia should be appointed as a Minister under Section 91(3)(c), either to an existing portfolio or to a specifically created ministry. Function Assignment: Once properly appointed as a Minister, the President could then assign him the functions and duties of the Police Ministry under Section 98. Allowing this appointment to stand without a proper constitutional foundation could create a problematic precedent, potentially enabling future presidents to circumvent constitutional limitations on ministerial appointments through the device of "Acting" positions. Most constitutional democracies with similar Westminster-derived systems maintain strict distinctions between substantive and acting appointments, typically requiring either explicit constitutional authorisation or limiting acting appointments to existing office holders. The Constitutional Court's emphasis on constitutional supremacy and the rule of law suggests that informal or assumed powers cannot substitute for explicit constitutional authority. The Court's approach in cases involving executive power has consistently emphasised adherence to constitutional procedures. Immediate Considerations Legal Challenge: The appointment presents grounds for constitutional challenge, particularly regarding the scope of presidential power and constitutional compliance. Parliamentary Oversight: Parliament should exercise its oversight function to examine the constitutional basis for the appointment. Academic Scrutiny: Legal scholars should engage with this issue to clarify the constitutional framework governing ministerial appointments. Long-term Implications Constitutional Amendment: Consider whether the Constitution requires amendment to provide clear authority for acting ministerial appointments. Judicial Clarity: The courts may need to guide the scope of presidential appointment powers and the requirements for temporary ministerial arrangements. Institutional Safeguards: Develop clearer protocols for ensuring constitutional compliance in executive appointments. Conclusion The Cachalia appointment highlights a significant gap between constitutional requirements and executive practice. While the President's intention to ensure continuity in police leadership during a period of crisis is understandable, constitutional compliance cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience. The legal fraternity must engage with this issue to uphold constitutional supremacy and ensure that all exercises of public power conform to constitutional requirements. The case serves as a reminder that in a constitutional democracy, even well-intentioned executive actions must comply with constitutional procedures. The assumption that presidential decisions are inherently legal represents a dangerous departure from constitutional principles that could undermine the rule of law if left unchallenged. This matter requires urgent attention from the legal profession, Parliament, and potentially the courts to ensure that South Africa's constitutional framework is properly implemented and respected. Anda Mbikwana is a PhD candidate and a municipal finance and leadership in governance expert, he writes in his personal capacity.
