Latest news with #executiveBranch
Mail & Guardian
6 days ago
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
GNU cabinet: Too many chiefs, not enough service
DA leader John Steenhuisen and ANC leader and South Africa's president, Cyril Ramaphosa. The government of national unity has 43 deputy ministers. If that number was trimmed, R100 million a year could be saved. Photo: GCIS In a time of service delivery failures, South Africa must take a hard look at its executive. Not just the quality of leadership but the sheer quantity of members. At a time when citizens are told to tighten their belts, and government departments are urged to cut spending, the executive branch remains bloated, inefficient and largely shielded from scrutiny. With the Each deputy minister earns more than R2 million a year, plus travel allowances, housing and VIP protection, yet they carry no constitutional executive authority. They are not members of the cabinet and cannot stand in for ministers unless the president appoints a sitting minister to act in a colleague's absence. The constitutional provision (section 93) clearly states that deputy ministers exist only to assist ministers — which often means reading speeches, attending ceremonial events and occupying symbolic roles during outreach initiatives. This raises the question — why are South Africans paying The cabinet appointments have amplified this contradiction. Many of the 43 deputies appointed in July 2024 are not technocrats but rather political appointees, placed to appease alliance partners and opposition factions — not to drive service delivery. The minister of cooperative governance and traditional affairs, for instance, now has two deputies, despite municipalities being largely in financial ruin, with 66 out of 257 municipalities deemed dysfunctional by the auditor general. This redundancy of roles is not only expensive, it is unjustifiable in the face of mounting austerity. The auditor general's 2023-24 Municipal Finance Management Act report highlights R22 billion in irregular expenditure, most of it from departments overseen by ministers with deputies. If anything, the proliferation of deputies has correlated with increased mismanagement, not improved outcomes. This is not an isolated critique. In 2015, then president Jacob Zuma appointed a similarly oversized cabinet — 35 ministers and 37 deputy ministers — attracting widespread criticism. Even then, commentators noted that countries with larger populations and GDPs, such as China (20 ministers) and Russia (23 ministers), operated more efficiently with leaner executives. So what exactly do South African deputy ministers do? There is no legally binding list of responsibilities for deputy ministers. They are not assigned key performance indicators in the same way that In fact, many remain largely invisible until public scandals or parliamentary debates put them in the spotlight. One notorious example was the 2013 revelation that then deputy minister of agriculture, Bheki Cele, had racked up hundreds of thousands in travel claims without attending a single provincial outreach session. And when they're not invisible, they're interchangeable. Deputy ministers are reshuffled frequently — with few, if any, consequences tied to performance. In the July 2024 cabinet reshuffle, more than a dozen deputy ministers were retained or reappointed despite having little public record of being effective. This creates deadweight politics — where individuals are paid handsomely to exist in government without contributing meaningfully to its function. It's not that all deputy ministers are ineffectual. Some work hard behind the scenes. But without transparency, reporting or structured oversight, we cannot separate the active from the idle. The National Development Plan calls for a professionalised public service, where merit and delivery are prioritised over political accommodation. The current system of deputy ministers flies in the face of this ideal. Moreover, at the provincial level, governments function without deputy members of executive councils. Departments are managed by one MEC and a team of civil servants. So why not replicate this model nationally? The government's own spending reviews have previously flagged the costs of the executive. In 2020, the Cutting deputy ministers might not fix South Africa's budget deficit overnight, but it sends a powerful signal — we are serious about governance reform. We are serious about performance. We are serious about value for money. It would also strengthen the credibility of the government in the eyes of citizens, who are increasingly disillusioned. According to the 2023 Afrobarometer survey, only 23% of South Africans trust the president to do what is right. Among young people, this number is even lower. When people protest over poor service delivery, they don't demand more deputies. They demand water, sanitation, jobs — and leaders who show up, account and deliver. The existence of 43 deputy ministers, many of whom are redundant, sends a clear message — the state exists to serve political interests first, public interests second. It doesn't have to be this way. The Constitution gives the president full discretion over whether to appoint deputy ministers. There is no legal obligation to do so. If President Cyril Ramaphosa wants to lead a truly efficient and ethical GNU, he must start by trimming the fat. A smaller, smarter cabinet is not a political risk, it's a governance necessity. Cutting down on deputy ministers is not just about saving R100 million annually, it's about restoring the integrity of the executive. It's about showing citizens that the government will lead by example. It's about building a leaner state capable of delivery, not just diplomacy. South Africa deserves a cabinet that works — not one that coasts. Dr Lesedi Senamele Matlala is a public policy and digital governance lecturer at the University of Johannesburg, at the School of Public Management, Governance and Public Policy.
E&E News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- E&E News
Judge suggests Trump layoff plans ‘usurp' Congress' power
A federal judge in California said Thursday that critics suing over the Trump administration's layoff plans are likely to succeed in their claims that the executive branch has overstepped its authority. During a hearing Thursday before the District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Susan Illston rebuked the Trump administration's early moves to conduct mass layoffs and said she is inclined to extend her order that temporarily blocked the administration's federal layoff and reorganization plans. 'My conclusions may change, but the evidence before the court today strongly suggests that the recent actions of the executive branch usurp the constitutional powers of Congress,' Illston said. Advertisement Illston thwarted the Trump administration's plans for mass layoffs across the government earlier this month when she issued an order temporarily pausing the administration's layoff plans at environmental agencies and other departments.
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What is ‘habeas corpus' and why might the Trump administration suspend it?
The Brief Stephen Miller says the Trump administration is considering suspending habeas corpus to accelerate deportations. Habeas corpus protects against unlawful detention and is deeply rooted in American law. Only Congress—not the president—has the authority to suspend it, and only in cases of rebellion or invasion. President Trump's top policy adviser, Stephen Miller, said Friday that the administration is considering suspending the constitutional right of habeas corpus—a foundational legal safeguard against unlawful imprisonment. The comment, made during a press appearance outside the White House, reflects growing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary as the Trump administration seeks to expedite deportations by reducing the role of courts in reviewing detentions. The backstory Habeas corpus, a Latin term meaning "you shall have the body," allows individuals held in custody to challenge the legality of their detention in court. It is a centuries-old legal mechanism that originated in English law and was enshrined in American jurisprudence through the Constitution and federal statutes. In practical terms, a writ of habeas corpus requires the government to justify the imprisonment of an individual—whether they are a criminal defendant, immigration detainee, or military prisoner. As the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute explains, habeas corpus is not about determining guilt or innocence. Instead, it serves to ensure that a person is not held arbitrarily, without legal authority or due process. What we know Under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, the privilege of the writ "shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Legal scholars overwhelmingly agree that only Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus, not the president—unless Congress explicitly delegates that authority. Despite that, Miller told reporters: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So, to say that's an option we're actively looking at… a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not." The administration has repeatedly invoked the term "invasion" in reference to undocumented immigration, including in executive orders and public statements. What we don't know It's unclear whether the Trump administration could legally suspend habeas corpus without congressional approval, or if immigration qualifies as the kind of "invasion" the Constitution requires. Legal experts largely agree that only Congress can authorize such a suspension. It's also unknown how courts would respond if the administration tried to limit detainees' access to judicial review, or what specific actions might follow if habeas rights were suspended. The other side The potential move comes amid the administration's frustration with federal judges who have blocked or slowed deportations and immigration enforcement efforts. Miller accused courts of waging a "war" on both the executive and legislative branches, citing a judge's intervention in the removal of individuals with temporary protected status and a Supreme Court ruling that ordered the government to return a deported Venezuelan man. Despite that ruling, the administration argued it did not have to actively bring the man back—prompting a federal judge to threaten the government with contempt. Why you should care Suspending habeas corpus would remove one of the few remaining legal tools available to undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers challenging detention or deportation. It would represent a seismic shift in the balance of power between the courts and the executive—and could set a legal precedent far beyond immigration cases. The Source This article is based on reporting from Axios and legal background information provided by the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute. Statements by Stephen Miller were made during a press appearance at the White House and are included as part of public coverage of the administration's immigration policy and legal strategy. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
New York Times
09-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump Moves to Fire Three Members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
President Trump has moved to fire three of the five members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which monitors the safety of products like toys, cribs and electronics, a White House official and the three members confirmed on Friday. It is the latest of the administration's efforts to purge perceived dissenters from independent agencies that is likely to end up in court. In statements, the three commissioners, all Democrats, asserted their removals were illegal. One had yet to receive formal notice on Friday, but said he was barred from performing his duties. The members, Mary T. Boyle, Richard L. Trumka Jr. and Alexander Hoehn-Saric, said in separate statements released Friday that they were targeted for votes they cast to stop the import of poorly made lithium-ion batteries and objecting to staffing cuts. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, defended their dismissals by asserting on Friday that Mr. Trump had not overstepped his authority because the congressionally created commission operates within the executive branch. 'Who's the head of the executive branch? The president of the United States,' she said. 'He has the right to fire people within the executive branch. Pretty simple answer.' In a statement titled 'See you in court,' Mr. Trumka said he received word on Thursday night that he was dismissed, days after he had voted to advance a solution to the deadly lithium-ion battery issue and hours after he opposed two staffers from the Department of Government Efficiency, the initiative run by Elon Musk, from detailing to the agency. Mr. Trumka said he had also vehemently opposed any staff cuts at the agency. 'I made it clear that I was a roadblock to the administration's plan to fire civil servants at the C.P.S.C. who work to keep you safe every day,' Mr. Trumka wrote. In her statement, Ms. Boyle said that she supported the lithium-ion standards. Her vote to advance them, she said, 'rejected the delay tactics of this administration which has put in place a so-called regulatory freeze and a byzantine process' that requires the White House to review proposed safety standards in advance. She also said she was fired the day after she 'spoke out forcefully and unequivocally against efforts to strip the agency of qualified professionals whose work ensures that consumers can have confidence in the products they buy.' Mr. Hoehn-Saric said in his statement that, while he had yet to receive official word from the White House, the acting chair of the commission had prevented him from executing his duties on Friday 'based on an assertion that the president is also seeking my removal.' His name was already listed among former commissioners on the agency's website. Mr. Hoehn-Saric said that he, too, had supported the proposed battery rule, citing the importation of poorly made lithium-ion batteries that have been responsible for deadly e-bike and e-scooter fires across the country. 'The illegal attempt to remove me from the C.P.S.C. happened immediately after my colleagues and I took steps to advance our safety work and protect our staff from arbitrary firings,' Mr. Hoehn-Saric said. 'President Trump's action politicizes a critical independent public safety agency that was structured by law to avoid such interference.'
