The legal battle surrounding President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave intensified this week as the Constitutional Court delved into the arguments presented by the official opposition, uMkhonto weSizwe (MKP), and its leader, Jacob Zuma. At the heart of the matter lies the constitutionality of Ramaphosa’s actions in the wake of allegations from Kwazulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who claimed that gangs, including drug cartels, have infiltrated the country’s criminal justice system and exert significant control over political and legal institutions.
Ramaphosa’s legal representatives assert that the president’s authority should be respected, but any scrutiny must follow appropriate legal channels. This perspective was reinforced by Kate Hoffman, a senior counsel representing Ramaphosa, who emphasised that Zuma and MKP bypassed several avenues available to them for challenging the president’s decisions, positioning their case as fundamentally flawed.
“And we say amongst the exercise of that discretionary power to do things like suspend when there is good reason to do so. Those are not obligations placed on the President. Those are powers given to him,” Hoffman argued. She contended that if Zuma and his party felt aggrieved, they should have sought their remedy in the High Court before escalating the issue to the Constitutional Court.
During the proceedings, justices posed probing questions regarding the scope of the president’s authority over ministerial appointments. The complexity of whether his cabinet-forming powers represent merely conferred authority or a constitutional obligation was a focal point of discussion. Hoffman maintained that it was inappropriate for Zuma and MKP to bring their challenges directly to the apex court.
In contrast, Advocate Dali Mpofu, who argued for Zuma, highlighted the unusual circumstance of appointing Firoz Chachalia without formally dismissing Mchunu. “The president was determined to ensure his political ally continued to draw a salary and benefits, even whilst his suitability for public office was under scrutiny,” Mpofu stated, asserting that Ramaphosa should have dismissed Mchunu before proceeding with the appointment of an acting minister.
Mpofu suggested that the resolution would have been simpler if Ramaphosa had unambiguously chosen to retain Mchunu or to dismiss him outright, thereby clarifying the rationale behind the leadership appointment within the police service. This contention was made amid concerns that Ramaphosa’s establishment of a commission of inquiry into Mkhwanazi’s allegations might not yield substantial outcomes, echoing sentiments that such commissions often devolve into protracted discussions without delivering actionable results.