Advocate Dali Mpofu has dismissed the argument that President Cyril Ramaphosa did not dismiss troubled Police Minister Senzo Mchunu because the allegations against him by celebrity cop Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi have not been tested.
Mpofu made the argument in his reply to Ramaphosa’s legal representative, Advocate Ngwako Maenetje SC, as the two legal eagles battled it out in the apex court over the MKP case challenging Ramaphosa’s decision to place Mchunu on special leave.
According to Maenetje SC, who quoted extensively from Ramaphosa’s affidavit, the president did not dismiss Mchunu because the allegations on him are untested.
Madlanga Commission of Inquiry
Ramaphosa had in fact established the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry. It aims to test the allegations against Mchunu among other people. And after its outcome he might review his decision not to send Mchunu to the unemployment ranks.
Mpofu SC rejected this submission. He affirmed that there was no rationality between the decision by the president to place Mchunu on suspension and the outcomes of the Commission. At least if history is anything to go by.
Ramaphosa, charged Mpofu SC, had already proven for all to see that he does not take Commissions of Inquiry seriously.
In this regard, Mpofu believes Mchunu might in fact be promoted even if the Madlanga Commission were to nail him.
If such could happen to Minerals Minister Gwede Mantashe, who occasionally acts as President when Ramaphosa is abroad, logic dictates that Mchunu might benefit in the same manner.
History of elevating offenders
“We have live evidence that this president, irrespective of the outcome of the commission will not only appoint you to be a minister but will actually promote you if there is an opportunity to do so,” said Mpofu SC.
“When allegations against certain ministers were tested in the Zondo Commission, those ministers were said to be prima facie criminally liable. That he says he is waiting for in Mchunu, the president appointed those people to be cabinet ministers.
“The live evidence of that is none other than Minister Gwede Mantashe. Let us call it the Mantashe test. Despite the tested allegations at the Zondo Commission, the president has appointed Minister Mantashe as acting Police Minister now as we speak,” he went on.
“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, [he was] promoted to be acting president. What is that?
“There has to come a time in this country when we must say this far and no more. We cannot have a president coming to this court saying ‘I am waiting for these things to be tested so that I can act’. When all the evidence of all people implicated in the Zondo Commission have been appointed by him.”
Mpofu insisted that there was no rationality to having Mchunu continue earning a salary for sitting at home with the pretence that Madlanga Commission outcomes might have him fired.
Mchunu favoured as president’s ally
If anything, he added, Mchunu was placed on a leave of absence to ensure he continues having an income. He was a long-time political ally of Ramaphosa since CR17 campaign days some eight years ago.
“Mr Maenetje is telling us that the decision to place on leave of absence is rationally connected and linked to the stated purpose. The stated purpose is that this is a leave of absence. Pending the outcome of the commission.
“The fallacy of that argument is that there is no rational connection between the leave of absence and the outcome of the commission.”
Mpofu SC closed off the heated court hearing in which judgement is reserved. He closed it by attacking Ramaphosa’s submission that he did not have the prerogative to dismiss Mchunu under the circumstances.
According to Mpofu SC, this was rich coming from a Ramaphosa who recently wielded the dreaded axe on DA Deputy Minister Andrew Whitfield for alleged misdemeanours.
“We are told by the president that there is no such thing as the prerogative. So, when it suits the president, there is prerogative. When the shoe pinches, there is no such a thing.”
