MK Party sends legal letter to Ramaphosa over two acting police ministers

The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) says South African taxpayers cannot afford to pay for two ministers in one portfolio as it accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of of violating his oath of office and failing to uphold the Constitution as required by that office.

This was after Ramaphosa placed Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on leave and appointed Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting Police Minister. 

MKP leader, Jacob Zuma, has also given Ramaphosa until 10am on Friday, August 8, to resign. 

In a letter dated August 4, Zuma said he will take action against Ramaphosa if he fails to adhere to the demand. 

Ramaphosa’s spokesperson Vincent Mangwenya said they were aware of the letter. 

“The legal team will deal with that letter,” he said.

The letter from KMNS attorneys, who act on behalf of Zuma, comes after the Constitutional Court last week dismissed the MKP's application to have a direct access to challenge Ramaphosa’s decision to place Mchunu on a leave of absence, appointing Cachalia as acting police minister and establishing a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the corruption allegations in the police and judiciary. 

“Various reasons have been offered in respect of the decisions which were impugned by our client and uMkhonto weSizwe Party in the Constitutional Court which found that it lacked exclusive jurisdiction and/or has no basis to grant the requested direct access. 

"As a result, our client has or sought urgent advice on possibly taking the relevant dispute(s) to the High Court and/or any other appropriate forum. It is assumed that you stand by the reasons previously given for the decisions announced on 13 July 2025,” reads the letter.

The party’s spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela added: “ The judges did not want to take a decision knowing exactly that the MK Party has a strong case. By placing Mchunu on leave of absence and appointing Cachalia as an acting police minister, the country is having two ministers of police. Both ministers are acting.”

Zuma, who said he is a concerned citizen, a voter and a former President, also demanded the date and time when Ramaphosa decided to place Mchunu on leave of absence and the decision to appoint Cachalia as acting police minister, as well as their current positions.

“When exactly (date and time) was your decision to place Minister Mchunu on leave of absence taken? When exactly (date and time ) was your decision to appoint Professor Cachalia as Acting Minister of Police (was) taken, communicated to him and to the public?

“What exactly is a ‘Minister Designate’, from a constitutional point of view?  Immediately after the swearing-in ceremony (i.e. from around 9:30am on 1 August 2025), what was the exact correct description of Professor Cachalia? Was he a minister, acting minister or minister designate? What is the present, correct, full and official description of Mr. Senzo Mchunu? If the answers are the same, for how long is it envisaged that South Africa will have and pay for two Ministers of Police at the same time?” Zuma asks in the letter.

He also wanted to know Ramaphosa’s reasons for not dismissing Mchunu based on the allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police boss Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, that Mchunu had ties to criminal gangs and meddled in police investigations into politically motivated murders.

Zuma also wanted to know what is the public benefit in having two ministers of police, adding that one is active, while the other one is on leave.

“What were the reasons why one of the 2 (two) Deputy Ministers of Police was not promoted to the position of Acting/Minister of Police as you did, for example, with Deputy Minister (Buti) Manamela who was subsequently promoted to Minister of Higher Education? What are the estimated costs to the taxpayers for the failure to act in a similar or consistent manner?”

He said irrespective of the answers Ramaphosa might give, his conduct to place Mchunu on leave and appoint Cachalia remain illegal, irrational and unconstitutional.

“With the publicly available information as well as the pleadings and deliberations in the recent Constitutional Court proceedings, our client is of the view that, irrespective of any answers you might give to the above list of questions, the impugned conduct remains illegal and irrational and unconstitutional.”

“It may have been further compounded by the events which occurred between July 13 2025 and August 1, 2025 and which have a continuing adverse impact on the South African citizens and taxpayers, including our client,” the letter read, adding that Ramaphosa should withdraw his decision to place Mchunu on leave and the appointment of Cachalia.

“Due to the obvious urgency and importance of the issues raised above, these demands must be fulfilled immediately but by no later than 10h00 on Friday, August 8 2025, failing which all our client’s rights are reserved, including the right to urgently approach the courts for appropriate relief, without any further notice to you.”

manyane.manyane@inl.co.za