Constitutional Court Dismisses MK Party and Zuma's Application Against Ramaphosa
The Constitutional Court has dismissed an urgent application brought by the MK Party and its leader, Jacob Zuma, against President Cyril Ramaphosa. The application challenged Ramaphosa's decisions regarding the police ministry and the establishment of a commission of inquiry. The court's ruling upholds the President's authority in these matters.
Background to the Application
The MK Party and Zuma specifically challenged President Ramaphosa's decision to place Senzo Mchunu on special leave as Police Minister. They also sought to overturn the appointment of Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and invalidate the commission of inquiry established to investigate alleged criminal infiltration within the South African justice system. Their argument centered around the constitutionality and validity of these actions.
Court's Reasoning and Ruling
Justice Rammaka Mathopo, in delivering the court's unanimous judgment, stated that the application failed to meet the requirements for direct access or exclusive jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the matter did not fall within its exclusive jurisdiction under section 167(4)(e) of the constitution. They argued that the MK Party and Zuma should have first pursued the matter in the High Court before seeking intervention from the Constitutional Court. According to Mathopo, the complaint pertained to the improper exercise of presidential powers rather than a failure to exercise them, thus falling under the review jurisdiction of the High Court.
Specific Points from the Judgment
- The court held that jurisdiction is determined by the pleadings, not the merits of the case.
- The application lacked sufficient evidence beyond broad allegations of constitutional non-compliance by Ramaphosa.
- The court distinguished between disputes about the President's conduct and those where he fails to fulfill a constitutional obligation.
Costs and Further Actions
The Constitutional Court ordered each party to bear its own costs in the matter. Justice Mathopo noted that while the applicant's case for exclusive jurisdiction and direct access was unsuccessful, the constitutional questions raised were not entirely without merit. As of now, the MK Party and Jacob Zuma have not yet issued a response to the ruling.
High Court Proceedings
Following the Constitutional Court's initial refusal of direct access, the MK Party and Zuma lodged an urgent application in the High Court in Pretoria. This application aimed to revisit the merits of their original claims and raise new grounds of illegality and irrationality based on events occurring after the Constitutional Court hearing. However, the High Court also dealt a blow to their efforts to halt the Madlanga Commission.
Reactions and Implications
The ruling effectively allows Firoz Cachalia to continue as acting police minister and the Madlanga Commission to proceed with its investigation. The legal battle highlights the ongoing tensions and challenges surrounding the exercise of presidential powers and the mechanisms for constitutional review in South Africa. This is a developing situation, and further reactions are expected from the involved parties, particularly the MK Party and Jacob Zuma.
