The Constitutional Court says the case brought by former president Jacob Zuma and the MK Party against President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to make SAPS-related decisions and establish the Madlanga commission is devoid of material evidence for exclusive jurisdiction to the apex court.
This statement was made by Constitutional Court Justice Rammaka Mathopo on Friday when the highest court in the land was providing a full judgement and reasons behind its July 31 order that dismissed Zuma and his MK Party’s case. Their case was challenging Ramaphosa’s decision to put police minister Senzo Mchunu on leave of absence.
Challenged Madlanga commission
They also challenged his appointment of Prof Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister. And his establishment of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into criminality, political interference and corruption in the criminal justice system.
The commission is chaired by retired Constitutional Court Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga. It began its proceedings on September 17.
The July unanimous order, which was handed down by Mathopo, said the application did not engage the court’s exclusive jurisdiction. In addition, Mathopo said no case had been made out for direct access to the Constitutional Court. At the time, he said the full reasons for the order would follow at a later stage.
The judgment paved the way for Ramaphosa to appoint Cachalia and for the commission to proceed with its work.
Mathopo read the judgment and reasons for the July order on Friday. He said Zuma and the MK Party’s application cannot succeed since a case has not been made for direct access.
“The broad allegations [of the applicants] failed to comply with constitutional obligations and are devoid of material evidence for exclusive jurisdiction… The applicants’ complaint is that the president [Ramaphosa] exercised his powers irrationally, and not that he failed to fulfil his constitutional obligations. Such complaints and concerns fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court,” said Mathopo.
Weak case
“Section 83b is therefore insufficient to ground this court to exclusive jurisdiction. This court finds that Section 83b is coupled by a specific constitutional obligation. No such urgency of a specific constitutional obligation has been identified…
“The applicant’s complaint is about the manner in which the president dealt with the matter [corruption allegations in the criminal justice system]. None of the impugned decisions constitute a failure to fulfil constitutional obligations,” said Mathopo.
“There is no urgency that necessitates this court hearing this matter and sitting as a court if first and last instance…The applicants have not adequately explained why they did not pursue the available avenue [High Court]…
“In the result, the application cannot succeed. This is not a matter that falls within exclusive jurisdiction. Nor one where interests favour direct access…,” said Mathopo.
Mathopo said each party to the case should bear their own legal costs.
Another major loss for MK
=”yoast-text-mark”>=”color: #000000;”>On September 18, the second day of the Madlanga commission of inquiry, the Pretoria High Court struck off the roll the urgent application by Zuma and the MK Party to overturn Ramaphosa’s decisions to put Mchunu on leave of absence. To also appoint Cachalia as acting police minister and establish the commission.
The Madlanga commission was established by Ramaphosa on July 13. This was after KZN police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s explosive media briefing on July 6. At the briefing, he said politicians in parliament, police officers, metro police officers, correctional service officials, prosecutors and members of the judiciary in Gauteng are part of a criminal syndicate in Gauteng. And they are controlled by drug cartels and business people in Gauteng.
