The apex court handed down its ruling at 2pm on Thursday.
The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) has dismissed former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party’s urgent application to invalidate President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on a leave of absence, appoint Wits law professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and establish a commission of inquiry.
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 Mkhwanzi of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system
It has ruled that the application does not engage the court’s jurisdiction and has refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa.
ConCourt ruling
Justice Rammaka Steven Mathopo handed down the apex court’s ruling in a brief order at 2pm on 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.
The ruling basically clears the way for Ramaphosa to appoint Cachalia – an appointment that was due to be made on Friday – and for the Madlanga commission to proceed with its work.
[BREAKING] Constitutional Court denies Jacob Zuma and his MK Party direct access. The parties approached the apex court to challenge the appointment of Prof. Foroz Cachalia as acting police minister and Senzo Mchunu being placed on leave of absence.#Newzroom405 pic.twitter.com/HjxYZqz5db
— Newzroom Afrika (@Newzroom405) July 31, 2025
ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should’ve started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS]
MK party reaction
Speaking outside court, MK party national spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela said they will be consulting with national officials.
“This is a very serious issue and we’re going to consult. I need to consult with the national officials, obviously, with our legal team, as to what the next steps are. But in this country, quite honestly, this is more than anything else, just a travesty of justice.”
Zuma’s counsel, Advocate Dali Mpofu, said the former president has expressed “his own shock” at the ruling.
Mpofu did not want to comment about him allegedly being personal during arguments in the ConCourt, playing to the political gallery and not actually dealing with the law, resulting in the outcome the MK party and Zuma suffered.
“Well, I’m not going to comment on that kind of thing.”
Mpofu said they are waiting for instructions from Zuma on the way forward.
“I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future in relation to this matter, we might be back in this court or we might be in another court.”
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DENIES ZUMA'S MK PARTY 'DIRECT ACCESS' https://t.co/Jpc4L3nghZ
— Newzroom Afrika (@Newzroom405) July 31, 2025
MK party challenge
The court battle follows allegations by Mkhwanazi during a media briefing earlier this month. He accused Mchunu and deputy national commissioner for crime detection Shadrack Sibiya of political interference in police operations.
Zuma and the MK party argued that the move was unconstitutional, flagging legal and procedural violations.
Exclusive jurisdiction
During court proceedings on Wednesday, Zuma and the MK party argued that they went directly to the ConCourt on the grounds that it had exclusive jurisdiction and there are some matters only the apex court can decide, including a decision that Ramaphosa “failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation”.
Mpofu argued that even if the ConCourt did not have exclusive jurisdiction, the circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant hearing it directly.
However, Ramaphosa’s counsel, Advocate Kate Hofmeyr, rebutted Mpofu’s argument, saying cases that can exclusively be decided by the ConCourt 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,” she said.
ALSO READ: ConCourt to hand down judgment in Zuma, MK party vs Ramaphosa case
Implications
Hofmeyr also argued that even if the ConCourt were to entertain Zuma and the MK party’s case, it is common cause that Ramaphosa enjoys broad discretion to appoint and dismiss ministers.
“That power, plainly, includes the lesser power of placing those ministers on leave while serious allegations of impropriety are being investigated. The constitution gives the president the power to decide how to manage his Cabinet.
“The wisdom of the choices he makes is to be judged by the democratic process and not the courts,” Hofmeyr argued.
No case
Hofmeyr argued that Zuma and the MK party have made no case why the ConCourt has exclusive jurisdiction to hear their “urgent case”.
She slammed the MK party and Zuma’s case, saying that they put together court jurisdiction for this Constitutional Court in “two paragraphs of their founding affidavit”.
“This is such an important issue, and they devoted two paragraphs to it.”
Hofmeyr added that former chief justice Magoeng Mogoeng “spoke about the monopoly power of the apex court, which is why it needs to be highly selective about the cases it hears”.
ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi’s allegations will cost
