It was a battle of the advocates on Wednesday during a long and tense rally of arguments.
The MK party and former president Jacob Zuma will find out on Thursday the judgment in the application to challenge President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Wits law professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister.
The Constitutional Court is expected to hand down its judgment on Thursday, a day before Cachalia takes office as acting police minister.
Judgment on Thursday
“Kindly be advised that a decision will be handed down at the Constitutional Court on Thursday, 31 July at 14:00,” the court said.
Zuma and the MK party wanted the court to decide urgently on the matter because Cachalia will assume office on 1 August.
It was a battle of the advocates on Wednesday during a long and tense rally of arguments between the MK party and Zuma in the battle against Ramaphosa.
ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should’ve started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS]
Jurisdiction
Ramaphosa’s counsel, Advocate Kate Hofmeyr challenged Zuma’s counsel, Advocate Dali Mpofu, on jurisdiction and why the apex court had heard the matter instead of the High Court.
Hofmeyr argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited.
“This matter does not fall within this court’s exclusive jurisdiction. Very few matters do, and this is not one of them.
“Any allegation that the power was exercised unlawfully falls under our constitutional scheme to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to consider first. Additionally, there is no pressing need for this court, on 10 days’ notice, to decide the issues in this matter as a court of first and last instance,” Hofmeyr said.
Which court?
She slammed the MK party and Zuma’s case, saying that they put together court jurisdiction for the Constitutional Court in “two paragraphs of their founding affidavit”.
“This is such an important issue, and they devoted two paragraphs to it.”
Earlier, Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing Zuma, was asked by Justice Leana Theron to explain why Zuma and the MK party could not have brought their challenge in the high court and where they addressed this in their court papers.
According to Mpofu, the case deals with “crisp” constitutional issues that would inevitably result in the apex court dealing with this matter anyway.
Mpofu argued that if Zuma and the MK party had taken the time required to go through the court system with the application, “we would have no country left”.
Mchunu
He also argued that the leave of absence granted to Mchunu is central to the MK party’s case because if it had not been granted, there would be no need to appoint Cachalia in an acting position.
According to the MK party, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police commissioner Lieutenant General Nhalanhla Mkhwanazi’s accusations “raised urgent and serious concerns around the constitution, the rule of law and national security”.
Mkhwanazi made explosive allegations during a media briefing this month, accusing Mchunu and deputy national commissioner for crime detection Shadrack Sibiya of political interference in police operations.
During the day’s proceedings, Advocate Griffiths Madonsela, for Mchunu, argued that Zuma and the MK party, in their founding papers, called his “suspension by another name”.
“We embrace that characterisation. The MK party drew out spears, crying out, ‘crucify him, crucify him.’ That’s what they said when the president arrived. They said he must dismiss the minister… in their founding papers. That’s the case they made out.”
ALSO READ: Zuma says Ramaphosa has no constitutional power to suspend Mchunu
Madlanga Commission
While Ramaphosa said he had placed Mchunu on special leave to allow the Madlanga Commission to properly investigate the claims, Mpofu said questions need to be raised about whether “another multibillion rand commission” was “in the best interests of our people”.
Advocate Ngwako Maenetje, who also represented Ramaphosa, argued that Ramaphosa’s decision to place Mchunu on leave of absence was good governance because it ensured there was no possibility of interference in the investigation into Mkhwanazi’s allegations.
He also responded to questions about the president’s decision to appoint Cachalia in an acting capacity while the Madlanga inquiry investigates the allegations levelled against Mchunu.
Maenetje reiterated that Ramaphosa cannot exercise his power to dismiss on the basis of serious allegations that are untested.
Ramaphosa set up a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the Mkwanazi’s allegations.
ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi’s allegations will cost
