MKP ponders its next move after Concourt dismisses case on Mchunu, Madlanga commission

IOL News

3 days ago

The uMkhonto weSizwe Party has threatened to take to the streets following the ruling made by the Constitutional Court on Thursday, which unanimously dismissed MK President Jacob Zuma and MKP's application to set aside President Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on suspension.
Image: Timothy Bernard/Independent Newspapers
The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) has threatened to take to the streets following the ruling made by the Constitutional Court, which has unanimously dismissed the party's case challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to put police minister Senzo Mchunu on leave of absence, appoint Prof Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and establish the Madlanga commission of inquiry.
The decision of the court, which has denied Zuma and the party direct access, after the party approached the apex court to challenge the appointment of Cachalia as acting police minister and Mchunu's being placed on a leave of absence, has not been welcomed with its spokesperson, Nhlamulo Ndhlela saying the party will let South Africans determine their next cause of action.
Ramaphosa placed Mchunu on special leave after serious allegations by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that he colluded with a criminal syndicate, accepted illicit payments, interfered in investigations and disbanded a specialised task force into political killings.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad Loading
The court ruled that the MKP had erred when it took the matter to the apex court, adding that the matter failed to engage the court's exclusive jurisdiction.
Justice Rammaka Mathopo said no case had been made out for direct access to the Constitutional Court and that full reasons for the order would follow.
"It is clear that the application of the law in this country has eyes, and unfortunately, this is something that the people of South Africa must take into their own hands. We might have to consider taking the matter to the street. However, to be honest, this is a travesty of justice. We will have to consult as this is a very serious issue, as to what the next steps are. But in this country, to be honest, more than anything else, this is a travesty of justice," said Ndhlela outside court.
Reacting to the judgment, MKP legal representative Dali Mpofu indicated that the party's legal team would be studying the judgment while also considering some of the options the team and the MKP leader have before making a final determination.
"It's a shock. However, we will be consulting with our client. I can't deal with the merits of the case now for obvious reasons. No case is pending as we speak. I do not know what is going to happen concerning this matter. We might return to this court, or we might go elsewhere.
"The only issue that I can comment on is the fact that the issue of direct access seems to be confusing for everyone. Direct access is only meant for cases that should otherwise be going to the high court. That question does arise in this case. That question could have been asked on the Nkandla case, and when we were here on a secret ballot and an impeachment case. But most of all, it should have been asked when the Zondo commission came here directly, but nobody seems to have asked those questions," he stated.
Reacting to the judgment, constitutional law expert Richard Spoor indicated that the Constitutional Court places a premium on its jurisdiction and it was expected that the case would be dismissed.
"It was expected that the case would be dismissed. All I can say is that this happens quite frequently. The Constitutional Court is very jealous of which cases it allows to come to it. It is not going to hear every case that comes its way. It will look into whether the matter is of any constitutional significance. If it is not, it will dismiss it. It is not surprising, as this court is overloaded, and you have to make a very good case to approach it directly," he said.
Reacting to the judgment on social media, former Eskom CEO, Matshela Koko said:" This is the same Constitutional Court that granted Justice Zondo direct access and allowed Zuma to be jailed without trial. Zondo was not asked why he did not go to the magistrate's court first."
[e-mail]