President Cyril Ramaphosa has rejected comparisons between his decision to place Mchunu on special leave and the dismissal of former Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, Andrew Whitfield. In court documents, the president outlined that Whitfield was fired in June after breaching executive ethics by travelling to the United States in March for party business without his approval. Whitfield admitted to the violation, which Ramaphosa said justified his immediate dismissal.
In contrast, Ramaphosa emphasized that the allegations against Mchunu, which involve serious claims of interference in police operations, remain untested. “The allegations against Mchunu are of the most serious type and therefore, warrant a proper process of investigation,” he stated in his submission to the court. By placing Mchunu on special leave, Ramaphosa said he ensured the minister would not exercise any powers while the investigation proceeds, a move he described as standard and not indicative of favoritism.
The president is set to appear before the Constitutional Court on Wednesday to defend his executive decisions regarding Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and the establishment of a commission of inquiry into alleged corruption within the South African Police Service (SAPS). The decisions have drawn scrutiny following serious allegations of collusion and interference involving Mchunu, raised by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party has filed an urgent application with the Constitutional Court, seeking to overturn three of Ramaphosa’s decisions related to Mchunu’s status and the SAPS inquiry. However, Ramaphosa has dismissed the application as premature, arguing that the MK Party should have approached lower courts before escalating the matter.
Ramaphosa further challenged the MK Party’s approach, questioning the appropriateness of their urgent application to the Constitutional Court. He argued that the matter should have been addressed in lower courts first, as is customary in legal proceedings, to allow for a thorough review before reaching the apex court. The president’s legal team contends that the MK Party’s attempt to draw parallels between Whitfield’s dismissal and Mchunu’s special leave is flawed, given the differing circumstances and procedural requirements.
The establishment of the SAPS commission of inquiry, another point of contention in the MK Party’s application, aims to investigate systemic corruption within the police service. Ramaphosa defended this decision as a necessary step to address longstanding issues undermining public trust in law enforcement.
The case has sparked significant political debate, with the MK Party accusing Ramaphosa of inconsistent handling of executive accountability. Critics argue that placing Mchunu on special leave, rather than suspending or dismissing him outright, could be perceived as leniency, especially given the gravity of the allegations. However, Ramaphosa’s legal team has stressed that special leave is a procedural measure designed to balance fairness to the accused with the need to protect public interest during investigations.
The Constitutional Court hearing is expected to scrutinize the legal basis of Ramaphosa’s decisions, including whether they align with constitutional principles governing executive authority. The outcome could set a precedent for how similar allegations against senior officials are handled in the future.
