Lawyers for the MK Party have told the Pretoria High Court that there is no rational link between placing Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave and the outcomes of the Madlanga Commission.
The party and its leader, former President Jacob Zuma, are challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to appoint Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister while Mchunu remains on suspension. This follows a controversial briefing by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who made serious allegations against the minister.
The legal battle marks the MK Party’s third appearance in court over the matter. The case previously stalled in the Constitutional Court in July and was removed from the roll in September due to a lack of urgency.
President Ramaphosa placed Mchunu on special leave pending the outcome of the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry. But during proceedings, Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing the MK Party, argued that the commission’s findings would not necessarily dictate the president’s next steps.
Mpofu highlighted that several politicians implicated in corruption during the Zondo Commission were later appointed to ministerial positions, questioning the rationale behind Mchunu’s suspension. “There is no automatic link between the commission’s outcomes and any executive action,” he said, adding that the president has sole discretion over appointments to the cabinet and does not require a reason to make or reverse such decisions.
The case raises questions about the balance of power in political appointments and the accountability of ministers facing allegations. The MK Party’s lawyers insist that madlanga-commission-court-told#error=login_required&state=478a3fb1-d3aa-4ee0-ac16-14f365f0bbc4">the suspension is arbitrary and not legally justified, stressing that the court must determine whether the president’s actions were rational and fair under the law.
The Pretoria High Court is expected to hear further arguments in the coming weeks, with both sides preparing detailed submissions on whether Mchunu’s special leave was legally warranted. The outcome could have implications for the independence of commissions of inquiry and the exercise of executive authority in South Africa.
