News

Jacob Zuma’s court battle against Cyril Ramaphosa over Senzo Mchunu’s leave fails

By Mpho Koka
Preferred Source Add as Preferred Source on Google Follow Google News Follow on Google News
MK Party's bid at ConCourt fails
Police Minister placed on special leave, Senzo Mchunu. / Gallo Images

The Constitutional Court has dismissed an application by former president Jacob Zuma and the MK Party to challenge President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to put Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on a leave of absence.

The apex court also dismissed Zuma and the MK Party’s application to challenge Ramaphosa’s decision to appoint Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and establish a judicial commission of inquiry into criminality, political interference, and corruption in the criminal justice system.

The brief judgment was handed down on Thursday afternoon by Justice Rammaka Mathopo.

Mathopo said Zuma and the MK Party’s application did not make a strong case for direct access to the Constitutional Court.

The full reasons for the Constitutional Court’s judgment, according to Mathopo, would follow at a later stage.

Claims against Mchunu not tested

The arguments in the case between Zuma, the MK Party, and Ramaphosa were heard before the court on Wednesday.

Throughout the proceedings, Zuma’s attorney, Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, rejected the claim that Ramaphosa did not fire Mchunu because KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s accusations against him had not been proven.

Mpofu presented this argument in response to Ramaphosa’s legal representative, Advocate Ngwako Maenetje SC, during their heated debate on Wednesday.
According to Maenetje, who quoted extensively from Ramaphosa’s affidavit, the president did not dismiss Mchunu because the allegations against him are untested.
Ramaphosa had in fact established a commission of inquiry, said Maenetje, which aims to test the allegations against Mchunu, among other people.
After its outcome, the president might review his decision not to fire Mchunu.
Mpofu rejected this submission, saying the president’s decision to suspend Mchunu and the commission’s results were irrational.
According to Mpofu, it is already evident to everyone that Ramaphosa does not take commissions of inquiry seriously.

Mchunu could be promoted

In this regard, Mpofu believes Mchunu might in fact be promoted even if the commission of inquiry were to nail him.
Mpofu said: “We have proof that this president will appoint you as a minister and promote you if possible, regardless of the commission’s outcome.
“When allegations against certain ministers were tested in the Zondo commission, those ministers were said to be prima facie criminally liable.
“The live evidence of that is none other than Minister Gwede Mantashe. Despite the tested allegations at the Zondo commission, the president has appointed Minister Mantashe as acting police minister.”
He continued: “We have hard evidence that Mchunu will be qualified for promotion himself because not only has Mantashe been appointed minister of minerals and made acting police minister, but [he was] also promoted to be acting president. What is that?
Mpofu insisted that it was irrational for Mchunu to continue earning a salary while sitting at home under the pretence that the commission’s outcomes could lead to his dismissal.

Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content

  • The Constitutional Court has dismissed an application by former president Jacob Zuma and the MK Party to challenge President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to put Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on a leave of absence.
  • The apex court also dismissed Zuma and the MK Party’s application to challenge Ramaphosa’s decision to appoint Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and establish a judicial commission of inquiry into criminality, political interference, and corruption in the criminal justice system.
  • The brief judgment was handed down on Thursday afternoon by Justice Rammaka Mathopo.
  • Mathopo said Zuma and the MK Party’s application did not make a strong case for direct access to the Constitutional Court.
  • The full reasons for the Constitutional Court’s judgment, according to Mathopo, would follow at a later stage.