The high court struck the urgent application off the roll.
The MK party and its leader Jacob Zuma suffered a blow in their attempt to stop the Madlanga commission, which has been tasked with investigating the criminal justice system.
On Thursday, the party appeared in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, seeking to interdict the work of the judicial commission of inquiry.
The MK party is also challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister, which forms part B of their review application.
This legal action follows an earlier defeat in July for the party and Zuma in the Constitutional Court (ConCourt), which ruled that the matter did not engage its jurisdiction and therefore refused direct access to the applicants.
As a result, the MK party turned to the high court.
MK party, Zuma seek interdict against Madlanga commission
During Thursday’s proceedings, Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing the MK party, argued that the case was “self-evidently urgent” because the Madlanga commission had commenced its public hearings a day earlier, with KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi testifying as the first witness.
Mpofu insisted that the inquiry is inconsistent with the constitution and that the police force is being run illegally because Cachalia’s appointment was illegal.
He said Mchunu was being “paid to do nothing” for at least six months, the expected duration of the Madlanga commission.
“We are dealing with unprecedented events,” Mpofu said.
He argued that, for a case to meet the criteria of urgency, there must be a contest about the rule of law, wastage of state resources, and allegations of abuse of state powers — all of which have been included in the MK party’s application “exceedingly so”.
ALSO READ: Madlanga commission: Mkhwanazi pulls no punches, says Mchunu involved with criminals
“A reasonable president of any country should want to know as soon as possible whether he is wasting R150 million, whether his appointment of a minister is legal or illegal and whether his placement of someone on special leave is legal or illegal,” he said.
Mpofu added that the fact that Mkhwanazi alleged there was rot within the criminal justice system, including claims of collusion between politicians and crime syndicates, underscored the urgency.
“The 60 million citizens of this country would like to know whether the criminal justice system starting from the police to the NPA, the security services, metro police and judiciary is in the hands of drug lords.
“If that is not urgent then nothing will ever be; nothing under the sun.”
Watch the case below:
‘The horse has bolted’
Advocate Ngwako Maenetje, counsel for Ramaphosa, countered that the only “urgency” displayed by the MK party and Zuma was that the commission had already commenced at taxpayers’ expense.
“That means the horse has bolted. That doesn’t make the matter urgent,” he argued.
Maenetje said the high court may later decline to set aside the commission of inquiry in part B of the application.
READ MORE: Zuma and MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring ‘most serious’ violations by Ramaphosa
He also highlighted that Cachalia had already assumed his new role on 1 August.
“This minister is in office and is performing his functions. That is not a justification for urgency, it counts against them.
“They should have come to court to stop the minister taking office. They tried, but they went to the wrong court so who is to blame for that?”
High court judgment
Judge Ronel Tolmay delivered judgment after the lunch break.
Tolmay 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,” the judge said.
She added that the case, despite Mkhwanazi’s serious allegations, requires “careful judicial consideration”.
“Rushing it through the urgent court will 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”.
“The Madlanga commission commenced with its work yesterday.”
The judge ultimately struck the application off the roll.
NOW READ: Madlanga Commission: Mkhwanazi warns criminal justice system risks total collapse
