Latest news with #Wits
The Citizen
14 hours ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, Hofmeyr
Ramaphosa's lawyer argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. The Constitutional Court on Wednesday heard that MK party president Jacob Zuma's challenge to President Cyril Ramaphosa's decisions following the allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police chief Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi should rather have been launched in the high court. Zuma is challenging Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Wits law professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya and Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga were not part of the bench hearing the matter on Wednesday. Among the claims made by Mkhwanazi were those of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system and that Mchunu intervened to disband the KZN political killings task team in order to shield individuals linked to politically connected crime syndicates. ConCourt cases In a long day of intense arguments, Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr said 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. Zuma and MK party Hofmeyr also argued that even if the apex court were to entertain Zuma and the MK party's case, it is common cause that Ramaphosa enjoys broad discretion to appoint and dismiss ministers. 'That power, plainly, includes the lesser power of placing those ministers on leave while serious allegations of impropriety are being investigated. The constitution gives the president the power to decide how to manage his Cabinet. 'The wisdom of the choices he makes is to be judged by the democratic process and not the courts,' Hofmeyr argued. ALSO READ: 'We would have no country left if Zuma, MKP didn't fight Madlanga inquiry in ConCourt,' says Mpofu [VIDEO] Jurisdiction Hofmeyr argued that Zuma and the MK party have made no case why the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear their 'urgent case'. She said should the Constitutional Court widen its criteria for exclusive jurisdiction for the Zuma/MK party matter, it would mean that any case involving the exercise of the president's powers can be brought before the apex court. 'If this court in this judgment widens its jurisdictional ambit to take this case, it will likely mean, amongst other things, that all powers that are granted to the president under the Constitution, powers to assent to bills, powers to call for national referenda, to pardon offenders, to confer honours, will come here and on here as this court of first and final instance. And that would make a mockery of the prior jurisprudence of this court.' [WATCH] Kate Hofmeyr SC, on behalf of President Ramaphosa, says this matter does not fall within the Constitutional Court's exclusive jurisdiction, noting that very few matters do and this is not one of them. — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 ALSO READ: Zuma says Ramaphosa has no constitutional power to suspend Mchunu Urgency Justice Rammaka Mathopo asked Hofmeyer if she 'reckoned that the public importance of the matter could have been entertained by the High Court?' 'Certainly. There are manifold cases of great constitutional significance that appropriately start in the High Court. Justice Mathopo, this court has said in its own judgments how its workload is crippling currently. The expansion of its jurisdiction means it is a court that should be engaged as a court of last resort because that advances the administration of justice,' Hofmeyer said. 'There is such importance behind this point. The administration of justice requires this court to sit when it must sit and to deal with its extraordinary backlog that it currently faces. 'If this court can be the court that every litigant comes to when it alleges that there has been some irregular exercise of power by the president, all the other cases that legitimately must be here, the cases in which this court must sit as an appellate court are shifted down the roll, and that in our constitutional scheme is reason to be very cautious,' Hofmeyr said. 'Punishing consequences' Ramaphosa, in his heads of argument, said the urgent application initiated by Zuma directly to the Constitutional Court without approaching lower courts will have 'far-reaching and punishing consequences' for the apex court. 'Despite this, the court has been asked by the applicants to convene itself on hyper urgent timelines, and to determine alone, and finally, the meaning of constitutional provisions that will have far-reaching consequences for the exercise of power by the president well into the future.' Justice Steven Majiedt asked Hofmeyr why the Constitutional Court shouldn't hear the matter, 'given the fact that it goes to national security and that it implicates a wide range of actors, even the judiciary'. [WATCH] Kate Hofmeyr SC, on behalf of President Ramaphosa, says, 'When an interim interdict is sought, there is no final determination on the ultimate legal question. It is done at a prima facie level.' — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 Hofmeyr said that many cases involve matters of grave constitutional significance. 'But our constitutional scheme says those start in the high court. The high court is where you go. The high court moves urgently, more easily than this court does.' Hofmeyr added that former chief justice Magoeng Mogoeng 'spoke about the monopoly power of the apex court, which is why it needs to be highly selective about the cases it hears'. Mathopo asked what will happen to Cachalia's appointment if Hofmeyr is right that Zuma and the MK party have not made a case for direct access to the Constitutional Court, or proved that it has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case. Hofmeyr said Cachalia will take office and the Madlanga Inquiry will continue. 'And that is the consequence, Justice Mathopo, when litigants go before the wrong forum, it is just simply the consequence. If you go before the forum that didn't have jurisdiction, you suffer this consequence.' Jurisdiction She slammed the MK party and Zuma's case, saying that they put together court jurisdiction for this Constitutional Court in 'two paragraphs of their founding affidavit'. 'This is such an important issue, and they devoted two paragraphs to it.' Earlier, Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing Zuma, was asked by Justice Leana Theron to explain why Zuma and the MK party could not have brought their challenge in the high court and where they address this in their court papers. According to Mpofu, the case deals with 'crisp' constitutional issues that would inevitably result in the apex court dealing with this matter anyway. Mpofu argued that if Zuma and the MK party had taken the time required to go through the court system with the application, 'we would have no country left'. 'Crucify' Mchunu During the day's proceedings, Advocate Griffiths Madonsela, for Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, argued that Zuma and the MK party, in their founding papers, called this 'suspension by another name'. 'We embrace that characterisation. The MK party drew out spears, crying out, 'crucify him, crucify him.' That's what they said when the president arrived. They said he must dismiss the minister… in their founding papers. That's the case they made out. 'The case they made out in reply at page 236, paragraph 90, they repeated that claim. They said the minister should have been dismissed. He deserved to be dismissed, as it happened with Whitfield at paragraph 90 of the replying affidavit. 'It was in this context that the president, after consultation with Minister Mchunu, and you'll find this in the answering affidavit at page 172, paragraph 12, where the minister says that I was consulted by the president about this and he confronted me about the allegations made by General Mkhwanazi and I denied wrongful conduct on my part. And that under those circumstances, the president said, I couldn't dissolve the issue. I'll place Minister Mchunu on special leave,' Madonsela said. He focused his address on arguing that Ramaphosa does have the power to place Mchunu on special leave, which he accepts amounted to the minister being suspended. He also defended the rationality of the president's decisions in response to Mkhwanazi's accusations. [WATCH] Advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC, for Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, says: "The applicants said, in their founding papers, this 'suspension by another name,' and we embrace that characterisation." — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 Commission Ramaphosa set up a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the allegations and appointed Cachalia as acting police minister. Mpofu, representing Zuma, argued that the leave of absence granted to Mchunu is central to the MK party's case because if it had not been granted, there would be no need to appoint Cachalia in an acting position. According to the MK party, Mkhwanazi's accusations 'raise urgent and serious concerns around the constitution, the rule of law and national security'. While Ramaphosa said he had placed Mchunu on special leave to allow the Madlanga Commission to properly investigate the claims, Mpofu said questions need to be raised about whether 'another multibillion rand commission' was 'in the best interests of our people'. The MK party wants the court to decide urgently on the matter because Cachalia will assume office on 1 August. Cachalia Advocate Ngwako Maenetje, who also represented Ramaphosa, argued that Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on leave of absence was good governance because it ensured there was no possibility of interference in the investigation into Mkhwanazi's allegations. He also responded to questions about the president's decision to appoint Cachalia in an acting capacity while the Madlanga Inquiry investigates the allegations levelled against Mchunu. Maenetje reiterated that Ramaphosa cannot exercise his power to dismiss on the basis of serious allegations that are untested. Mpofu agreed that Ramaphosa had the power to appoint Cachalia as the police minister. 'What he did not have the power to do was appoint him to an acting position.' Judgment has been reserved. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
The Citizen
19 hours ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
'We would have no country left if Zuma, MKP didn't fighT'
An intense battle is playing out in the Apex Court. The Constitutional Court has heard that there would be 'no country left' if former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party (MKP)did not fight the Madlanga inquiry into KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police chief Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's allegations of criminal infiltration into the South African justice system. An intense battle is playing out in the Apex Court, with Zuma challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya and Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga were not part of the bench hearing the matter on Wednesday. Concerns Dali Mpofu, representing Zuma, argued that the leave of absence granted to Mchunu is central to the MK party's case because if it had not been granted, there would be no need to appoint Cachalia in an acting position. According to the MK party, Mkhwanazi's accusations 'raise urgent and serious concerns around the constitution, the rule of law and national security'. While Ramaphosa said he had placed Mchunu on special leave to allow the Madlanga Commission to properly investigate the claims, Mpofu said questions need to be raised about whether 'another multibillion rand commission' was 'in the best interests of our people'. 'Is it in the best interests of the people to have two police ministers?… With one sitting at home while the other serves in an acting position,' Mpofu asked. ALSO READ: Zuma says Ramaphosa has no constitutional power to suspend Mchunu Why not the High Court? Justice Leana Theron asked Mpofu to explain why Zuma and the MK party could not have brought their challenge in the high court and asked him to specifically refer her to where they address this in their court papers. According to Mpofu, the case deals with 'crisp' constitutional issues that would inevitably result in the apex court dealing with this matter anyway. Mpofu argued that if the Zuma and the MK party had taken the time required to go through the court system with the application, 'we would have no country left'. [WATCH] Advocate Dali Mpofu has criticised the President's decision to establish another commission of inquiry, arguing that it's not in the public's best interest. — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 Implications Ramaphosa, in his heads of argument, said the urgent application initiated by Zuma directly to the Constitutional Court without approaching lower courts will have 'far-reaching and punishing consequences' for the apex court. 'Despite this, the Court has been asked by the applicants to convene itself on hyper urgent timelines, and to determine alone, and finally, the meaning of constitutional provisions that will have far-reaching consequences for the exercise of power by the president well into the future'. Madlanga Commission Mpofu also criticised Ramaphosa's decision to establish another commission of inquiry, arguing that it's not in the public's best interest. 'Is it in the best interest of our people that we have yet another multibillion commission which may or may not yield any outcomes, so that, as I will demonstrate, you know, the community and the public can be sanitised and numbed into forgetting by the time the commission report comes in three, four years time, everyone would have forgotten what the issues are. 'Is that in the best interest of our people? Is it in the best interest of our people to have two ministers holding effectively the same portfolio being paid over the next three, four years, two salaries, one sitting at home doing nothing, the other one acting in his place cannot ever be in the best interest of our people.' Mpofu argued. Mchunu suspension In the head of arguments filed at the Constitutional Court, Ramaphosa defended his decision to place Mchunu on a leave of absence and appoint Cachalia, saying it is to protect the integrity of law enforcement agencies and to safeguard public trust. He justified the additional expenditure in appointing Cachalia as necessary to maintain the legitimacy and integrity of the criminal justice system during the investigation into the serious allegations against Mchunu. During proceedings, Mpofu argued that the 'problem' with Ramaphosa is that he is trying to have his 'cake and eat it' in that he wants to appoint Cachalia as an acting minister while simultaneously 'saving his ally' Mchunu and allowing him to continue receiving a salary and benefits. ALSO READ: Here's why Zuma's MK party wants Ramaphosa removed in 'urgent' motion of no confidence No ally Mpofu said Ramaphosa cannot do both, and if he wants Cachalia, he must fire Mchunu. However, Ramaphosa in his papers denied in the 'strongest terms' that his decision to place Mchunu on special leave rather than dismissing him amounted to special treatment of an ally. 'This allegation is based on pure speculation and conjecture. I deny it in the strongest terms. I have dealt with Minister Mchunu in accordance with my constitutional powers, having exercised my judgment regarding the appropriate course of action to adopt in the particular circumstances of this case. 'Far from revealing bias on my part, the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the allegations reveals the seriousness with which I take the allegations against Minister Mchunu,' Ramaphosa said. Cachalia Justice Zukisa Tshiqi questioned Mpofu about his argument that Ramaphosa's appointment of Cachalia as an acting minister is unconstitutional. She pointed out that Ramaphosa has the power to appoint ministers outside the National Assembly, which he accepts. Tshiqi asked Mpofu whether, once Cachalia is appointed, 'he then becomes part of the Cabinet' and is therefore legally appointed. Mpofu agreed that Ramaphosa had the power to appoint Cachalia as the police minister. 'What he did not have the power to do was appoint him to an acting position'. [WATCH] [WATCH] Representing the uMkhonto weSizwe Party at the Constitutional Court, Anton Katz argues that Chapter 5 of the Constitution grants no power to suspend, only to appoint or dismiss with nothing in between. — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 No power Representing the MK party at the Constitutional Court, Anton Katz argued that Chapter 5 of the constitution grants no power to suspend, only to appoint or dismiss, with nothing in between. Katz is adamant that there is no power for the president to suspend ministers in the constitution, nor can an acting minister be appointed. 'There is no power to suspend, it's a point of dismissal, nothing in between. There is no such thing as an acting minister; these ideas are an enigma to the notion of what a minister does in the South African context under Chapter Five of the constitution.' Chapter 5 of the constitution deals with the president and the National Executive. It outlines the roles, powers, and responsibilities of the president and the Cabinet. The MK party wants the court to decide urgently on the matter because Cachalia will assume office on 1 August. ALSO READ: Ramaphosa appoints Gwede Mantashe as acting police minister
IOL News
a day ago
- Lifestyle
- IOL News
From caps to Gucci: Sarah Langa celebrates her MBA with a luxurious shopping spree
Sarah Langa rewards herself with high-end items after graduating with an MBA and dealing with academic stress. Image: Instagram Luxury lifestyle influencer and entrepreneur Sarah Langa celebrated a significant achievement on July 15, when she graduated with a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of Witwatersrand (Wits). 'I'm a three-time Wits graduate and social media personality. Today is a very special day for me, being a Witsie for life, 14 years being on this campus. Today is the day I finally get my qualification. It's been so exciting,' she said in a heartfelt video. This achievement is just the latest in a string of academic successes for Langa, who already holds four qualifications, including a BA in Psychology and Marketing, a postgraduate diploma in Business, and a degree from the British Academy of Interior Design. As a reward for her hard work, the beauty-with-brains treated herself to a Gucci shopping spree, which she shared on her TikTok. 'A gift to myself for my graduation from @Gucci for every year I tested my mental health in the name of academic excellence,' she captioned the video. In the clip, she shared that the luxury items were a token of appreciation for the years of academic stress she endured, saying it was a gift for every year of 'torture' she put herself through. Despite possibly going overboard, Langa believes the reward was worth it. Among the luxurious gifts she gifted herself are the Gucci Nara sneakers with a detachable anklet belt, perfect for running errands in comfort. She also picked up a bold Gucci blazer with the brand's iconic monogram, saying, 'Now we are all about business. Your girl has an MBA, so we gotta step it up.' The blazer will be a stylish addition to her 'working woman' closet. Another standout item is a pair of burgundy pumps featuring three leather straps, which she loves for their modern mash-up design. However, the real showstopper is a rare black leather Gucci bag that was the last one remaining in South Africa, which she feels was waiting for her. She shared that she's wanted the stylish bag before but did not have enough money to get it and decided to wait it out. The bag comes with a detachable gold strap, allowing her to style it with various looks, from beachy to elegant to casual denim ensembles. The four-time graduate is excited to experiment with different styles and make the bag a versatile addition to her wardrobe. Langa's recent splurge on Gucci goodies isn't an isolated incident. Fellow beauty influencer Mihlali Ndamase recently shared with 'News24' that her two Hermès Birkin bags, valued at around R1 million combined, are a three-year wait investment. She recently took to Instagram, flaunting her latest luxurious purchase in style at the Don Julio Tequila celebration day. In May, Ndamase took to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, to shop for high-end luxury brands, and two of the items she spoiled herself with were the two Birkin bags under her belt.
The Citizen
a day ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
WATCH LIVE: Zuma vs Ramaphosa ConCourt procedings
Jacob Zuma and the MK party are seeking to invalidate President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to place Senzo Mchunu on a leave of absence and appoint Feroz Cachalia. An intense battle is playing out in the Constitutional Court as the MK party and its leader, former president Jacob Zuma, challenge President Cyril Ramaphosa. This follows Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Wits law professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister. Zuma said Ramaphosa 'openly dodges' the clear distinction between the power to appoint a minister and the different power to appoint an acting minister. The apex court has agreed to hear the matter on Wednesday, 30 July. WATCH: MK party vs President Ramaphosa in court ALSO READ: Zuma takes on Ramaphosa in another ConCourt battle
The Citizen
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
ConCourt sets date for MK party's case against Ramaphosa over Mchunu
Former President Jacob Zuma and the MK party are seeking to invalidate Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on a leave. The Constitutional Court has set down a date to hear the MK party's urgent application against President Cyril Ramaphosa to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on leave. Former President Jacob Zuma and the MK party are seeking to invalidate Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on a leave of absence and appoint Wits law Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister. They are also challenging Ramaphosa's establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of corruption in the police. 'Applicants must file heads of argument by Sunday, 27 July 2025, at 14h00. Respondents must file heads of argument by Monday, 28 July 2025, at 14h00,' the court directed. The matter has been set down for Wednesday, 30 July at 11am. ALSO READ: Zuma says Ramaphosa has no constitutional power to suspend Mchunu Allegations KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Provincial Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi made explosive allegations during a media briefing this month, accusing Mchunu and Deputy National Commissioner for Crime Detection, Shadrack Sibiya, of political interference in police operations. In Ramaphosa's answering affidavit on Wednesday, the president argued that the constitution gives him 'a wide berth as to how to deal with ministers' 'It is clear that I am empowered to place a minister on special leave when there are serious allegations… so that those allegations can be properly investigated,' said Ramaphosa. However, Zuma argues there's no express constitutional power allowing Ramaphosa to impose special leave on Mchunu. ALSO READ: Ramaphosa motion of no confidence: MK party requests secret ballot Zuma challenge Zuma said there are details in Ramaphosa's affidavit that Mchunu will not return as minister of police after the commission of inquiry. 'There is nothing said in the president's affidavit which justified placing Minister Mchunu on 'special leave' and thereby causing him to retain his ministerial title, salary and other perks or privileges at the expense of the long-suffering taxpayer'. Feroz Cacahlia Zuma said Ramaphosa 'openly dodges' the clear distinction between the power to appoint a minister and the different power to appoint an acting minister. 'The two are plainly not the same. The obfuscatory reference to the credentials of Prof Cachalia is nothing but deflection. For the record, no issue is taken against the professor's credentials… The issue is whether he was constitutionally qualified to be appointed by the president. The answer is that he was not.' Zuma also challenged Mchunu's version of events, portraying it as 'evasive and legally flawed', saying the minister's affidavit is a 'masterclass in evasion – it skirts the core allegations and offers no constitutional basis for the executive's conduct.' ALSO READ: Here's why Zuma's MK party wants Ramaphosa removed in 'urgent' motion of no confidence
