Key Takeaways
- The Pretoria High Court has dismissed the challenge to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave of absence.
- The court also dismissed the challenge to the appointment of Firoz Cachalia as Acting Police Minister and the establishment of the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.
- The ruling judge, Anthony Millar, stated that suspending a minister pending serious but unverified allegations and instituting an independent inquiry are both rational and lawful exercises of executive power.
- The application was dismissed on the merits, with each party to pay its own costs.
- Former President Jacob Zuma and the MK party had sought to revive their legal challenge against Ramaphosa’s decisions, which follow allegations of corruption and interference in the police and criminal justice system.
Introduction to the Case
The Pretoria High Court has dealt a significant blow to former President Jacob Zuma and the MK party, dismissing their urgent bid to revive their legal challenge against President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on a special leave of absence. The decision, handed down on Tuesday, 9 December 2025, also dismissed the challenge to the appointment of Firoz Cachalia as Acting Police Minister and the establishment of the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry into allegations of rot, corruption, and interference in the police and criminal justice system.
The Court’s Ruling
Ruling Judge Anthony Millar stated that suspending a minister pending serious but unverified allegations, and instituting an independent inquiry to establish the facts, are both rational and lawful exercises of executive power. Millar noted that the President had rationally applied his mind to the establishment of the Madlanga Commission, and that the decision could not be faulted from a legality and rationality perspective. As a result, the entire application was dismissed. The court also addressed the issue of suspension or interdict, stating that a temporary interdict or temporary relief still requires certain conditions to be met, and that the applicants had failed to persuade the court.
Background to the Case
The application was brought by Zuma and the MK party, who sought to set aside Ramaphosa’s decision to place Mchunu on special leave. They also sought the invalidity, nullity, and unconstitutionality of the appointment of Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry. The challenge follows allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police chief Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who claimed that the South African justice system was infiltrated by criminals, and that Mchunu intervened to disband the KZN political killings task team in order to shield individuals linked to politically connected crime syndicates.
Previous Court Rulings
The Constitutional Court had previously ruled on 31 July 2025 that the application did not engage the court’s jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in their matter against Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa’s lawyer, Kate Hofmeyr, had argued that cases that could be decided exclusively by the Constitutional Court were very limited, prompting Zuma to bring the matter to the High Court. The High Court’s decision is the latest development in a long-running legal battle between Zuma and Ramaphosa, with significant implications for the governance and accountability of the South African police and criminal justice system.
Implications of the Ruling
The dismissal of the application is a significant victory for Ramaphosa, who has faced intense scrutiny and opposition from Zuma and the MK party. The ruling suggests that the President’s decision to place Mchunu on special leave and establish a commission of inquiry was rational and lawful, and that the court will not interfere with the executive’s exercise of power in this matter. The decision also highlights the importance of accountability and good governance in the South African police and criminal justice system, and the need for independent inquiries and investigations to address allegations of corruption and interference. Overall, the ruling is a significant development in the ongoing saga between Zuma and Ramaphosa, and is likely to have far-reaching implications for the governance and accountability of the South African state.