Concourt decision a 'travesty of justice', says MKP

The Constitutional Court has unanimously dismissed the uMkhonto weSizwe Party's (MKP) case challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to put police minister Senzo Mchunu on leave of absence, appoint Prof Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and establish the Madlanga commission of inquiry.

Following the decision of the court, which has denied the party direct access, its spokesperson, Nhlamulo Ndhlela said they will let South Africans determine their next cause of action 

Ramaphosa placed Mchunu on special leave after serious allegations by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that he colluded with a criminal syndicate, accepted illicit payments, interfered in investigations and disbanded a specialised task force into political killings. 

The court ruled that the MKP had erred when it took the matter to the apex court, adding that the matter failed to engage the court's exclusive jurisdiction.

Justice Rammaka Mathopo said no case had been made out for direct access to the Constitutional Court and that full reasons for the order would follow.

"It is clear that the application of the law in this country has eyes, and unfortunately, this is something that the people of South Africa must take into their own hands. We might have to consider taking the matter to the street. However, to be honest, this is a travesty of justice. We will have to consult as this is a very serious issue, as to what the next steps are. But in this country, to be honest, more than anything else, this is a travesty of justice," said Ndhlela outside court.

Reacting to the judgment, MKP legal representative Dali Mpofu indicated that the party's legal team would be studying the judgment and considering some of the options the team and the MKP leader have before making a final determination.

"It's a shock. However, we will be consulting with our client. I can't deal with the merits of the case now for obvious reasons. No case is pending as we speak. I do not know what is going to happen concerning this matter. We might return to this court, or we might go elsewhere.

"The only issue that I can comment on is the fact that the issue of direct access seems to be confusing for everyone. Direct access is only meant for cases that should otherwise be going to the high court. That question does arise in this case. That question could have been asked on the Nkandla case, and when we were here on a secret ballot and an impeachment case. But most of all, it should have been asked when the Zondo commission came here directly, but nobody seems to have asked those questions," he stated.

Reacting to the judgment, constitutional law expert Richard Spoor indicated that the Constitutional Court places a premium on its jurisdiction and it was expected that the case would be dismissed.

"It was expected that the case would be dismissed. All I can say is that this happens quite frequently. The Constitutional Court is very jealous of which cases it allows to come to it. It is not going to hear every case that comes its way. It will look into whether the matter is of any constitutional significance. If it is not, it will dismiss it. It is not surprising, as this court is overloaded, and you have to make a very good case to approach it directly," he said.

Cape Times