The Constitutional Court is set to hear a high-stakes legal battle yesterday as former President Jacob Zuma and the uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) party challenge President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave.
The dispute stems from allegations implicating Mchunu in misconduct, including claims of public office-bearers colluding with criminal syndicates. Ramaphosa’s move to place Mchunu on leave pending a judicial inquiry has drawn sharp criticism from Zuma and the MK party, who argue that the president overstepped his constitutional authority.
The Core of the Dispute
Zuma and the MK party are seeking to invalidate Ramaphosa’s decision, contending that the president lacks the power to suspend a minister without firing them. They describe the special leave as a “suspension with pay” and argue that Ramaphosa should have either dismissed Mchunu or allowed him to remain in office while the allegations were investigated.
In response, Ramaphosa has defended his actions in court filings, stating that removing a minister based on untested allegations could set a dangerous precedent. He emphasized that placing Mchunu on leave—while appointing Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting minister—was a rational and lawful step to ensure stability while allowing for a fair inquiry.
Judicial Commission of Inquiry Under Scrutiny
The MK party has also questioned the necessity of a judicial commission, raising concerns over costs and effectiveness, comparing it to the state capture inquiry under Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo. However, Ramaphosa has dismissed these comparisons, citing the Zondo Commission’s successes and affirming that the new inquiry will follow strict legal guidelines.
Court to Assess Presidential Powers
The Constitutional Court’s key task will be determining whether Ramaphosa acted within his constitutional mandate under Section 91 of South Africa’s Constitution. Legal experts anticipate a rigorous examination of executive discretion, particularly in cases involving ministers facing serious but unproven allegations.
With a ruling likely to have significant implications for executive authority and accountability in South Africa’s government.