ConCourt to deliver reasons for ruling against MK party and Zuma application

The Constitutional Court will on Friday hand down reasons for its ruling against the MK party and its leader, Jacob Zuma, in its matter against President Cyril Ramaphosa.

The MK party and Zuma brought an application challenging Ramaphosa’s decision to place Mchunu on special leave.

They also sought to have the appointment of Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry declared invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional, and set aside.

ConCourt ruling

However, on 31 July 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that the application does not engage the court’s jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in their matter against Ramaphosa.

The court ruling was handed down two hours after it hosted a special ceremonial sitting for retiring Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, whom Ramaphosa appointed to chair a commission to probe explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) top cop Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system.

Justice Rammaka Steven Mathopo handed down the apex court’s ruling in a brief order at 2pm on a Thursday.

“The court has considered the application for exclusive jurisdiction and direct access. It has concluded that the application does not engage the court’s jurisdiction, and no case has been made out for direct access.

“And the following order is made. One, direct access is refused; two, courts are reserved; three, reasons for this order shall be given at a later date. Thank you,” Mathopo said.

ALSO READ: Zuma takes new step to be reinstated as ANC member

MK party adamant

The ruling basically cleared the way for Cachalia to continue in his role and for the Madlanga commission to proceed with its work.

However, the MK party and Zuma did not give up the fight and lodged an urgent application against Ramaphosa in the High Court in Pretoria.

In his founding affidavit to the high court, Zuma said he was bringing the application in his personal capacity, but because the application is urgent and in the “interest of justice” he is also deposing the papers on behalf of the MK party.

“The twin purposes of this application are to re-assert the merits of the application which were left unadjudicated by the Constitutional Court on account of its findings on exclusive jurisdiction and direct access; and to raise new grounds of illegality and irrationality based on events which arose post the 30 July 2025 hearing in the Constitutional Court,” Zuma argued.

Zuma said that the present application was indisputably a constitutional matter.

Court cases

Ramaphosa’s lawyer, Kate Hofmeyr, argued in the Apex Court 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.

ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring ‘most serious’ violations by Ramaphosa

High Court

Nonetheless, after taking the matter to the High Court, the MK party and Zuma were dealt another blow in their attempt to stop the Madlanga commission, which has been tasked with investigating the criminal justice system.

Judge Ronel Tolmay, delivering the judgment after the lunch break, said the MK party and Zuma had presented “general statements” about the “catastrophic” events they claimed would result from Mkhwanazi’s allegations.

“In any event, despite the arguments of the applicants to the contrary, there is no indication in the present matter that the rule of law is under threat and that there will be serious human rights abuses if the impugned decision should stand pending the determination of a review in due course.”

Bolting the horse

She added that the case, despite Mkhwanazi’s serious allegations, requires “careful judicial consideration”.

“Rushing it through the urgent court will not be in the interest of justice.”

Tolmay said the law states that if an applicant cannot show evidence that it would suffer prejudice for the relief sought, then the case cannot be urgent.

She further agreed that “the proverbial horse has indeed bolted”.

NOW READ: Madlanga Commission: Mkhwanazi warns criminal justice system risks total collapse