Former President Jacob Zuma and the MK (uMkhonto weSizwe) Party have fired back at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s justification for placing Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave, calling the move unconstitutional and politically motivated.
In court papers filed in response to Ramaphosa’s answering affidavit, Zuma insists the president overstepped his authority by unilaterally suspending Mchunu and appointing Wits law professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister.
– Advertisement –
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: MK Party Files No-Confidence Motion Against President Ramaphosa Over Mchunu Controversy
The MK party’s urgent Constitutional Court application, lodged on 18 July, also contests the legality of Ramaphosa’s establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry into alleged corruption within the police.
“There is nothing said in the president’s affidavit which justified placing Minister Mchunu on ‘special leave’ and thereby cause him to retain his ministerial title, salary and other perks or privileges at the expense of the long-suffering taxpayer,” said Zuma.
Advertisements
Zuma argues that Mchunu is unlikely to return as police minister regardless of the inquiry’s outcome. “All we are left with are ex post facto and illegal rationalisations,” he added.
Executive Overreach or Due Process? A Legal Battle Over Power
President Ramaphosa, in his affidavit submitted on Wednesday, defended his decision by asserting his constitutional authority to place ministers on special leave when serious allegations arise. “It is clear that I am empowered to place a minister on special leave… so that those allegations can be properly investigated,” Ramaphosa stated.
However, Zuma challenged this interpretation, saying no explicit constitutional provision permits such action. He argued that Ramaphosa “openly dodges” the distinction between appointing a minister and appointing an acting minister, claiming that the latter requires a separate legal basis.
Zuma took particular issue with the appointment of Prof. Cachalia, saying, “The obfuscatory reference to the credentials of Prof Cachalia is nothing but deflection. For the record, no issue is taken against the Professor’s credentials… The issue is whether he was constitutionally qualified to be appointed by the president. The answer is that he was not.”
– Advertisement –
Advertisements
Zuma also contrasted the case with that of DA MP Andrew Whitfield, accusing Ramaphosa of applying a double standard. “It is also plainly false to state that Mr Whitfield ever admitted the allegations against him. The president has produced no evidence of this,” Zuma argued.
Judicial Commission Under Fire: “No One Should Be a Judge in Their Own Cause”
The controversy extends to the commission of inquiry itself, chaired by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga. Zuma argues that appointing a sitting judge to investigate matters involving the judiciary breaches a fundamental legal principle.
“It is irrational and unconstitutional to appoint a judge to chair a commission that is mandated to investigate allegations implicating members of the judiciary,” Zuma stated. “This violates the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause.”
Despite not opposing the idea of a commission outright, Zuma emphasised that it must be led by someone outside the implicated institutions to maintain credibility and impartiality.
Zuma concluded by insisting his application seeks not to evade accountability but to uphold constitutional integrity. “I make this application not to avoid accountability, but to ensure that the process by which accountability is demanded is itself lawful, impartial, and consistent with the constitution.”
For SA Politics Follow SurgeZirc SA on Facebook, X and Instagram
– Advertisement –
