The president would not meet Zuma's demands.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has, through his legal representative, reportedly responded to former president Jacob Zuma’s letter of demands sent to the president this week.
In the letter, Zuma, through his legal representative, KMNS Attorneys, said he had acted in his capacity as a “concerned citizen, voter, taxpayer and former president.”
He sought answers from the resident on the processes followed when he placed Police minister Senzo Mchunu on leave of absence and appointed Wits law professor Firoz Cachalia as acting minister.
“When exactly (date and time) was your decision to appoint Professor Cachalia as Acting Minister of Police taken, communicated to him and communicated 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?”
ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else…
Another demand was for Ramaphosa to step down from the Presidency by Friday, 10am, or face legal action.
The letter followed Zuma and the MK party’s Constitutional Court loss regarding the same matter. The court said the two parties’ application does not engage the court’s jurisdiction and consequently, refused them direct access in their matter.
Ramaphosa responds
In a letter shared by broadcaster Newzroom Afrika on Friday, Ramaphosa responded, saying while some of the answers to their questions were already in the public domain, others needed Zuma to follow proper procedure for asking questions to the president.
“To the extent that your client seeks information that is not already available to him, he will be aware, as the leader of the Umkhonto weSizwe Party, of the procedure under Chapter 10 of the National Assembly Rules to address a request for oral or written questions to the president,” reads the letter.
ALSO READ: MK party and Zuma suffer blow as ConCourt rules in Ramaphosa’s favour [VIDEO]
“That is the appropriate manner for a political party, and its leader, to address questions to the president. When the president receives questions through those proper procedures, he deals with them in accordance with the requirements of the Rules.”
Where he could have answered, he implied it would be a futile exercise as Zuma “has already concluded that his conduct was unlawful.”
The president would not meet Zuma’s demands, it continued.
“Furthermore, the president shall not comply with the demands in paragraph five of your letter. He stands by the reasons for his decisions as recorded in his answering affidavit in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. The decisions were lawful, rational and consistent with the president’s constitutional duties.”
If Zuma and the MK party do approach the courts over the president’s decisions, their application will be opposed, reads the letter.
Zuma is expected to hold a media briefing on Friday afternoon, “on the outcomes of the latest meeting of the national officials and will share the [MK] party’s latest developments.”
READ NEXT: Zuma and MK party case should’ve started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS]
