Court to decide if Ramaphosa overstepped with Police Minister and Madlanga Commission

A full bench led by Acting Deputy Judge President Letty Molopa-Sethosa is expected to decide whether the MK Party's challenge to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s establishment of the Madlanga Commission and appointment of acting Police Minister deserved an urgent intervention.

Judgment has been reserved, and the full bench will advise the parties as soon as a decision is reached.

The ruling will determine whether the court can proceed to hear the merits of the case without delay, setting the stage for yet another high political and legal clash.

At the centre of the dispute is Ramaphosa’s establishment of the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry into the Police and judiciary.

The president set up the inquiry to investigate persistent allegations of systemic failures, corruption, political interference and operational dysfunction within the SAPS.

The move followed years of public pressure and a series of damning reports that raised concerns about the state’s ability to combat crime effectively.

The MKP is challenging Ramaphosa’s appointment of Professor Firoz Cachalia as Acting Police Minister, arguing that the president has unlawfully reconfigured the security cluster while bypassing constitutional limits.

The party said Ramaphosa should have removed Minister Senzo Mchunu from the position after criminal allegations were levelled against him.

Mchunu is accused of being in cahoots with criminals and using his political influence to protect them.

MKP legal representative, Adv. Dali Mpofu SC, accused Ramaphosa of using procedural tactics to shield himself from substantive judicial scrutiny.

He urged the court not to give the president “another ruling on a technicality,” referencing the Constitutional Court’s earlier decision denying the MKP and former president Jacob Zuma direct access.

Mpofu further questioned the participation of Sesi Baloyi, co-commissioner of the commission, noting that she works within the judiciary.

“You can’t appoint a family member to investigate the family,” he said, suggesting a conflict of interest.

The MKP wanted Ramaphosa’s decisions declared unconstitutional, insisting that the inquiry and ministerial appointment violate fundamental legal principles.

The party argued that Ramaphosa did not act in good faith, but rather to protect his “comrade,” Mchunu.

kamogelo.moichela@iol.co.za

IOL Politics