‘We would have no country left if Zuma, MKP didn’t fight Madlanga inquiry in ConCourt,’ says Mpofu [VIDEO]

The Constitutional Court has heard that there would be “no country left” if former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party (MKP) did not fight the Madlanga inquiry into KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police chief Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s allegations of criminal infiltration into the South African justice system.

An intense battle is playing out in the Apex Court, with Zuma challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister.

Chief Justice Mandisa Maya and Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga were not part of the bench hearing the matter on Wednesday.

Concerns

Dali Mpofu, representing Zuma, 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, Mkhwanazi’s accusations “raise urgent and serious concerns around the constitution, the rule of law and national security”.

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”.

“Is it in the best interests of the people to have two police ministers?… With one sitting at home while the other serves in an acting position,” Mpofu asked.

ALSO READ: Zuma says Ramaphosa has no constitutional power to suspend Mchunu

Why not the High Court?

Justice Leana Theron asked Mpofu to explain why Zuma and the MK party could not have brought their challenge in the high court and asked him to specifically refer her to where they address 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”.

[WATCH]
Advocate Dali Mpofu has criticised the President’s decision to establish another commission of inquiry, arguing that it’s not in the public’s best interest. pic.twitter.com/OzNSqY9QaU

— SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025

Implications

Ramaphosa, in his heads of argument, said the urgent application initiated by Zuma directly to the Constitutional Court without approaching lower courts will have “far-reaching and punishing consequences” for the apex court.

“Despite this, the court has been asked by the applicants to convene itself on hyper urgent timelines, and to determine alone, and finally, the meaning of constitutional provisions that will have far-reaching consequences for the exercise of power by the president well into the future”.

Madlanga Commission

Mpofu also criticised Ramaphosa’s decision to establish another commission of inquiry, arguing that it’s not in the public’s best interest.

“Is it in the best interest of our people that we have yet another multibillion commission which may or may not yield any outcomes? So that, as I will demonstrate, you know, the community and the public can be sanitised and numbed into forgetting by the time the commission report comes in three, four years time, everyone would have forgotten what the issues are.

“Is that in the best interest of our people? Is it in the best interest of our people to have two ministers holding effectively the same portfolio being paid over the next three, four years, two salaries, one sitting at home doing nothing, the other one acting in his place cannot ever be in the best interest of our people.” Mpofu argued.

Mchunu suspension

In the head of arguments filed at the Constitutional Court, Ramaphosa defended his decision to place Mchunu on a leave of absence and appoint Cachalia, saying it is to protect the integrity of law enforcement agencies and to safeguard public trust.

He justified the additional expenditure in appointing Cachalia as necessary to maintain the legitimacy and integrity of the criminal justice system during the investigation into the serious allegations against Mchunu.

During proceedings, Mpofu argued that the “problem” with Ramaphosa is that he is trying to have his “cake and eat it” in that he wants to appoint Cachalia as an acting minister while simultaneously “saving his ally” Mchunu and allowing him to continue receiving a salary and benefits.

ALSO READ: Here’s why Zuma’s MK party wants Ramaphosa removed in ‘urgent’ motion of no confidence

No ally

Mpofu said Ramaphosa cannot do both, and if he wants Cachalia, he must fire Mchunu.

However, Ramaphosa in his papers denied in the “strongest terms” that his decision to place Mchunu on special leave rather than dismissing him amounted to special treatment of an ally.

“This allegation is based on pure speculation and conjecture. I deny it in the strongest terms. I have dealt with Minister Mchunu in accordance with my constitutional powers, having exercised my judgment regarding the appropriate course of action to adopt in the particular circumstances of this case.

“Far from revealing bias on my part, the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the allegations reveals the seriousness with which I take the allegations against Minister Mchunu,” Ramaphosa said.

Cachalia

Justice Zukisa Tshiqi questioned Mpofu about his argument that Ramaphosa’s appointment of Cachalia as an acting minister is unconstitutional.

She pointed out that Ramaphosa has the power to appoint ministers outside the National Assembly, which he accepts.

Tshiqi asked Mpofu whether, once Cachalia is appointed, “he then becomes part of the Cabinet” and is therefore legally appointed.

Mpofu agreed that Ramaphosa had the power to appoint Cachalia as the police minister. “What he did not have the power to do was appoint him to an acting position”.

[WATCH] [WATCH] Representing the uMkhonto weSizwe Party at the Constitutional Court, Anton Katz argues that Chapter 5 of the Constitution grants no power to suspend, only to appoint or dismiss with nothing in between. pic.twitter.com/qMWzQ1fHP5

— SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025

No power

Representing the MK party at the Constitutional Court, Anton Katz argued that Chapter 5 of the constitution grants no power to suspend, only to appoint or dismiss, with nothing in between.

Katz is adamant that there is no power for the president to suspend ministers in the constitution, nor can an acting minister be appointed.

“There is no power to suspend, it’s a point of dismissal, nothing in between. There is no such thing as an acting minister; these ideas are an enigma to the notion of what a minister does in the South African context under Chapter Five of the constitution.”

Chapter 5 of the constitution deals with the president and the National Executive. It outlines the roles, powers, and responsibilities of the president and the Cabinet.

The MK party wants the court to decide urgently on the matter because Cachalia will assume office on 1 August.

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa appoints Gwede Mantashe as acting police minister