Johannesburg, 30 July 2025 – In a landmark legal showdown at the apex of South Africa’s judiciary, the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party faced off with President Cyril Ramaphosa at the Constitutional Court, challenging key presidential decisions on constitutional grounds. The court heard the urgent application on 30 July 2025, and has reserved judgment.
The legal challenge, brought by the MK Party—aligned with former President Jacob Zuma—sought to overturn three decisions made by President Ramaphosa:
1. The placing of Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on “special leave”,
2. The appointment of Professor Firoz Cachalia, a non-cabinet member, as Acting Minister of Police, and
3. The establishment of a Judicial Commission of Inquiry chaired by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga.
MK Party argues that these actions were unconstitutional and exceeded Ramaphosa’s executive powers.
The MK Party’s Constitutional Objections
Represented by Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, the MK Party claimed that placing Minister Mchunu on special leave was an unlawful act tantamount to a suspension, which the Constitution does not empower the President to carry out without Parliamentary involvement. The party maintains that such leave does not exist in the Constitution and was a “construct of convenience.”
Regarding Cachalia’s appointment, the party contends that the Constitution only allows Cabinet members to act in ministerial roles, and Cachalia—though a respected academic and former politician—was not part of the Cabinet at the time. MK argues that this violated Section 98 of the Constitution.
The third leg of the challenge targets the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, which the President tasked with probing allegations involving senior officials. The MK Party raises concerns about judicial impartiality, arguing that judges cannot investigate institutions to which they belong, citing a potential conflict of interest and breach of the rule of law.
Ramaphosa’s Defence
President Ramaphosa’s legal team, led by Advocates Ngwako Maenetjie SC and Kate Hofmeyr SC, defended the President’s actions as constitutional and necessary given the gravity of the allegations against Minister Mchunu. They argued that placing a minister on special leave was an act of good governance, not a suspension, and that appointing Cachalia was a temporary, rational measure to ensure ministerial continuity.
On the commission of inquiry, the President’s team argued that judicial leadership in such commissions is not only permitted but crucial for credibility, especially when high-level political and institutional misconduct is involved.
Furthermore, they challenged the urgency and appropriateness of direct access to the Constitutional Court, suggesting the matter should have first been handled by the High Court.
Political Stakes and Broader Context
This case comes at a volatile time in South African politics. The MK Party, which emerged from the shadow of the ANC under Zuma’s leadership, secured over 14% of the national vote in the May 2024 elections, becoming a key opposition player. Zuma himself remains a highly influential figure despite being barred from Parliament due to a previous criminal conviction.
The showdown reflects broader tensions in a coalition-led South African government, where Ramaphosa’s ANC now governs in partnership with opposition parties, including the DA, under the Government of National Unity (GNU). The MK Party and others in the opposition Progressive Caucus see this as a betrayal of the liberation mandate and are using legal and parliamentary tools to challenge the President’s authority.
The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment, and South Africa now waits for a ruling that may redefine executive authority and clarify limits on presidential discretion. If the Court sides with the MK Party, it could set new legal precedents on how ministers are removed or relieved of duty, how acting appointments are handled, and the role of judges in executive commissions.
Beyond the courtroom, this case is a bellwether for the evolving balance of power in South Africa’s post-majoritarian democracy. It pits two political heavyweights—Ramaphosa and Zuma—in a legal battle that could reshape the constitutional landscape in the years to come.