The uMkhonto weSizwe party (MKP) has expressed vehement disapproval of the Constitutional Court’s recent ruling that dismissed their application challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa’s controversial decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave. This swift judgment, delivered in under a minute by Judge Mathopo, has ignited sharp criticism aimed at the apex court, suggesting a concerning trend in how judicial accountability is exercised in South Africa.The court’s brief ruling indicated that it found no grounds for exclusive jurisdiction or direct access, thus refusing the MKP’s application.
“The following order is made: one, direct access is refused. Two, costs are reserved. Three, reasons for this order shall be given at a later date,” Judge Mathopo said, leaving a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the day’s proceedings.In response, MKP spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndlela slammed the court for what they perceive as an evasion of its constitutional responsibilities.
“The President failed to provide any rational justification for his decisions, and instead of addressing substantive constitutional issues, the Constitutional Court relied on procedural technicalities to dismiss the matter,” Ndlela said.
“In doing so, the court has abdicated its responsibility to hold Mr. Ramaphosa constitutionally accountable.”
The party’s criticism extends beyond this singular case, drawing a comparison with the court’s previous judgments involving former president Jacob Zuma. They argue that the court’s refusal to grant direct access on this occasion is inconsistent with its earlier actions, such as those taken in the high-profile cases regarding Zuma’s legal challenges, where the court acted decisively without referral to lower courts.
“What is most appalling is the fact that this is the same court which used direct access and exclusive jurisdiction to send President Zuma to prison,” Ndlela said.
“Today, that court has no reason not to grant direct access on such an important matter.”
The MKP pointed out that Ramaphosa’s affidavit failed to substantively address the grounds raised by both Zuma and the MKP, casting further doubt on the court’s reasoning. As South Africa awaits the formal swearing-in of Professor Firoz Chachalia as the new police minister, the MKP is ramping up calls for a motion of no confidence against Ramaphosa, expressing concerns over what they view as systemic bias in the judiciary favouring the presidency.
“Let it be made clear: Mr. Ramaphosa enjoys the undue privilege of protection by the judiciary,” they said, citing various instances where legal hurdles appear to shield the current president from accountability.The presidency, for its part, has remained largely silent on the ruling, only confirming Chachalia’s appointment as police minister.
Meanwhile, MKP has vowed to intensify its lobbying efforts for the motion of no confidence and to galvanise public support for mass protests against the Government of National Unity led by Ramaphosa. As the political landscape evolves, questions of judicial impartiality and executive accountability loom larger than ever, posing critical implications for the future governance of South Africa.
