South Africa’s Constitutional Court has dismissed the MK Party and Jacob Zuma’s urgent application challenging President Ramaphosa’s decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Firoz Cachalia as acting minister, redirecting the case to the High Court.
Introduction
In a major legal development, South Africa’s Constitutional Court has declined an urgent application filed by the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and its leader Jacob Zuma, which challenged President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to put Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Firoz Cachalia as acting minister. The court determined that the matter does not fall within its exclusive jurisdiction and should instead proceed before the High Court. This judgment comes at a politically sensitive moment and highlights the limits of presidential powers, the proper judicial forum, and the constitutionality of a ministerial suspension For more details you can visit
Background: Mchunu’s Leave and Cachalia’s Acting Appointment
In late July 2025, President Ramaphosa placed Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave pending the outcome of an inquiry chaired by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga. The investigation was initiated after allegations by KwaZulu‑Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who accused Mchunu of collusion with criminal syndicates and interference in sensitive police matters. During the ongoing inquiry, Ramaphosa appointed Firoz Cachalia—not a cabinet member—as acting Minister of Police, prompting legal action from the MK Party.
The Constitutional Challenge
The MK Party’s legal team, led by Dali Mpofu SC and Anton Katz SC, contended that:
- The Constitution grants the President the power to appoint or dismiss ministers, but there is no authorization to suspend them.
- Delegating ministerial duties to a non‑cabinet member like Cachalia contravenes constitutional requirements.
- Although billed as voluntary, Mchunu’s special leave effectively reduced his powers while Cachalia assumed his responsibilities.
- The commission led by Justice Madlanga was inappropriate, since Mkhwanazi’s allegations implicated the judiciary, and a sitting judge should not oversee such an inquiry.
In response, President Ramaphosa’s legal counsel including Kate Hofmeyr SC and Ngwako Maenetje SC argued:
- The case was filed in the wrong forum; it is a challenge to presidential conduct, not a constitutional failure, and should be heard in the High Court.
- Granting direct access to the Constitutional Court would allow litigants to bypass lower courts, undermining judicial structure and precedent.
- The apex court’s jurisdiction is meant to be reserved for truly exceptional matters, not routine disputes over ministerial authority.
Core Legal Questions Examined
At the hearing, the Constitutional Court addressed several critical issues:
- Jurisdiction and forum: Is it appropriate to accept direct access or would that encourage forum shopping?
- Exceptional circumstances: Do issues of national security, or the judiciary’s integrity, justify bypassing the High Court?
- Ministerial powers: Was placing the minister on special leave within the President’s discretionary power, or an unauthorized suspension?
- Inquiry leadership: Can a sitting judge validly head an inquiry involving allegations against the judiciary?
- Costs implications: Should costs be awarded for unsubstantiated or speculative claims presented by the MK Party?
Justices—including Mathopo, Theron, Majiedt, and Kollapen—pressed both sides on each of these points, probing whether the matter genuinely warranted intervention by the apex court.
The Court’s Decision
On July 31, 2025, the Constitutional Court issued a unanimous ruling dismissing the MK Party’s direct-access application. The court found:
- The case does not engage the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
- There were no compelling grounds for direct access in this instance.
- The High Court is the appropriate venue to hear urgent constitutional matters, offering more efficient relief.
As a result, Firoz Cachalia is cleared to formally assume the role of acting Minister of Police, and the Madlanga inquiry will continue according to schedule. A full written judgment explaining the court’s reasoning is expected to follow.
Reactions and Political Consequences
The MK Party has strongly criticized the ruling, characterizing it as a double standard and accusing the Constitutional Court of inconsistency referencing previous instances where direct access had been granted in cases involving Zuma and state inquiries. A party spokesperson declared: “Lady Justice is no longer blind she has chosen a side.”
The MK Party has stated that it will explore further legal options and may engage in political mobilization ahead of the 2026 local elections.
In contrast, proponents of President Ramaphosa see the outcome as confirmation of procedural integrity. It reinforces that ministerial succession and suspensions must align with constitutional mandates and be adjudicated in the proper judicial forum.
Constitutional and Legal Significance
The ruling delivers several important legal principles:
- Limits on presidential discretion: It affirms that while the President may appoint or dismiss ministers, there is no general power to suspend them or delegate their responsibilities to non‑cabinet members.
- Preserving judicial hierarchy: Urgent constitutional challenges must begin in the High Court, except in truly exceptional scenarios.
- Protecting court workloads: The decision underscores the need to restrain direct access, preventing the apex court from being overwhelmed by routine disputes.
- Deterring unsupported allegations: Justices warned that broad, unverified conspiracy claims risk exposing parties to cost orders and undermining legal credibility.
What Happens Next?
- Firoz Cachalia will assume the role of acting Minister of Police while the ministerial inquiry continues.
- The Madlanga-led commission will proceed with gathering and assessing evidence.
- The MK Party may initiate High Court proceedings to challenge the suspension or appointment.
- The forthcoming written judgment will clarify the court’s constitutional reasoning on jurisdiction and direct access.
- Politically, the decision may become a theme in upcoming campaigns, with continued focus on executive reach and judicial accountability.
The MK Party’s Legal and Political Stance
The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party’s legal maneuver reflects a deeper political strategy aimed at challenging what it perceives as executive overreach and institutional imbalance. Led by former President Jacob Zuma, the party has consistently positioned itself as a watchdog over presidential authority, particularly when it involves internal governance and security matters. In this case, the MK Party argued that President Ramaphosa exceeded his constitutional mandate by suspending Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and appointing Firoz Cachalia someone outside the Cabinet as acting minister. This position underscores the party’s broader critique of the current administration, which it accuses of undermining both democratic norms and the rule of law.
Politically, the case has energized MK supporters, who view the court battle as part of a larger resistance against what they label as state “gangsterism” and political manipulation. Public demonstrations led by figures such as Bonginkosi Khanyile amplified these sentiments, portraying the legal challenge as a patriotic duty to safeguard South Africa’s democratic institutions. While the Constitutional Court has reserved judgment, the MK Party’s vocal opposition continues to stir public discourse and may influence how similar executive actions are scrutinized in the future.
Conclusion
The Constitutional Court’s dismissal of the MK Party’s challenge to Ramaphosa’s actions regarding Minister Mchunu solidifies the legal boundaries on presidential powers in South Africa. It confirms that suspending a minister or reallocating responsibilities to a non‑cabinet member lacks constitutional basis, and reinforces that urgent disputes must proceed through the High Court. As the Madlanga inquiry continues and the court’s full judgment is awaited, this case remains a landmark in the ongoing dialogue about judicial jurisdiction, executive discretion, and political accountability in South African governance.
