JUST IN: ConCourt dismisses MK party and Zuma’s bid against Ramaphosa

The Constitutional Court has dismissed the MK party and its leader, Jacob Zuma, ‘s urgent application challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Justice Rammaka Steven Mathopo handed down reasons for its ruling against the MK party and Zuma, in its matter against Ramaphosa, on Friday.

The apex court stated that the MK party and Zuma did not adequately explain why they did not pursue the matter against Ramaphosa in the High Court before approaching it.

Application

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, unconstitutional, and set aside.

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

Ruling

In the unanimous judgment, penned by Mathopo, the Court held that jurisdiction is determined on the pleadings, and not the merits.

It further held that the MK party and Zuma’s founding papers challenged the lawfulness of specific decisions but lacked anything more than broad allegations that Ramaphosa had failed to comply with constitutional obligations.

The court further held that the constitution distinguishes disputes about the president’s conduct from those where he has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation.

“Section 167(4) (e) must be narrowly construed. The applicant’s complaint was not that the president failed to exercise his powers, but that he exercised them improperly. Such complaints fall within the standard review jurisdiction of the High Court.”

Reasons

Mathopo said that section 167, subsection 2(b) of the constitution empowers the High Court to grant interim relief pending confirmation.

He said the MK party and Zuma should have approached the High Court first, and that the application did not engage the court’s jurisdiction for direct access to the MK party and Zuma in their matter against Ramaphosa.

“The applicants have not adequately explained why they did not pursue this available avenue. The fact that appellate or confirmation proceedings might follow a high court judgment cannot undermine what the constitution says about the proper allocation of jurisdiction,” Mathopo said.

“The importance of issues in the case does not, without more, constitute exceptional circumstances and justify this court being a Court of First and Last instance. The more important and complex the issue in the case, the more compelling the need for this court to be assisted by the views of another court,” Rammaka said.

“In the result, the application cannot succeed on either threshold,” Mathopo said.

Direct access

Mathopo said the MK party and Zuma’s urgent application do not fall within the apex court’s jurisdiction.

“This is not a matter that falls within this court’s exclusive jurisdiction under section 167(4)(e) of the constitution, nor is it one where the interest of justice favours direct access under section 167(6)(a) of the constitution.

“Accordingly, it is not competent for this court to opine on the merits of the applicant’s challenge to the impugned decisions, and that issue must be left for the right time and at the appropriate forum. Should the applicants be so inclined,” Mathopo said.

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

Costs

Mathopo said each party should bear their own costs.

“I find that although the applicant’s case for exclusive jurisdiction and direct access is unsuccessful in the constitutional questions they sought to raise were not entirely without merit.

“The jurisdictional claims, though sufficiently pleaded, are not so manifestly hopeless as to warrant costs by watch protection, as that is warranted in the circumstances, and each party should bear their own cost,” Mathopo said.

The MK party and Zuma are yet to react to the ruling.

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