Defiant Nkabane snubs higher education committee meeting
"Allow me to tender my apology to you and the entire committee in this regard," Nkabane wrote.
Letsie said he responded on the same day, making clear her apology was not accepted. He told her the meeting of the committee was a priority.
"The Constitution mandates that members of the cabinet are accountable, collectively and individually, to parliament for their actions. Your presence in the meeting on Friday is critical for the committee to fulfill its constitutional oversight mandate.
"I request that you kindly reconsider your decision not to attend the meeting on July 18 based on the matters raised above. It is not my intention to seek alternative means within the legislative framework to compel you to come to the meeting," Letsie wrote to Nkabane.
He said she wrote back on Thursday requesting that he reconsider his decision. She claimed she was required to attend a stakeholder engagement focused on GBV prevention and awareness and leadership capacity development within the higher education and training sector.
"The GBV engagement involving student leaders, institutions, civil society organisations and the department addresses one of the most serious and systemic challenges affecting our post schooling institution, specially young women.
"The minister made the prevention of GBV a strategic and moral priority within the post school education and training sector, consistent with government's broader commitment. I acknowledge and do not diminish the importance of the committee's follow up deliberations concerning the appointment process of SETA accounting authority chairperson. I remain ready to appear to clarify and fully account on the matter," she said when requesting an alternative date for the committee sitting.
Nkabane said her request was made in good faith and not as an act of avoidance. She said should the committee feel compelled to explore the use of other mechanisms, such as a subpoena, she requested that it note the public expenditure committed towards the GBV programme would be rendered wasteful.
"An outcome I believe we all seek to avoid," she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
3 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Ramaphosa's lawyers argue that probing claims against Mchunu would enable a dismissal in line with Constitution
JOHANNESBURG - Lawyers representing President Cyril Ramaphosa have argued that the need to investigate the allegations against Police Minister Senzo Mchunu would enable him to dismiss the minister in a way that is consistent with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court is hearing a case brought by the MK Party to challenge Ramaphosa's appointment of an acting minister while Mchunu is suspended. Mchunu's suspension was prompted by an explosive press briefing by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, where he made allegations about Mchunu's links to a crime syndicate in Gauteng. ALSO READ: • Ramaphosa can fire Mchunu and reappoint him if he is cleared, MK lawyers argue in ConCourt • Zuma's lawyers accuse Ramaphosa of abusing Constitution The president has addressed Parliament and taken questions on his decision not to fire Mchunu but place him on suspension, to which he has responded that he cannot suspend Mchunu based on untested allegations. On Wednesday, his lawyer, Advocate Ngwako Maenetje, took this argument a step further, saying the investigation into Mchunu in the form of a judicial commission of inquiry would enable the president to respond to the allegations in line with the Constitution and the principle of rationality. "And we would submit that that need for investigation in that context is to enable the president to distress the power to dismiss in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution and the requirement of the principle of rationality." Maenetje said that while there is no express provision that says the president can suspend a minister, it is implied in his power to appoint. The president's lawyers said it was good governance on the part of the president to remove Mchunu from his office, while he is being investigated.
The Citizen
4 hours ago
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, Hofmeyr
Ramaphosa's lawyer argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. The Constitutional Court on Wednesday heard that MK party president Jacob Zuma's challenge to President Cyril Ramaphosa's decisions following the allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police chief Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi should rather have been launched in the high court. Zuma is challenging Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Wits law professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya and Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga were not part of the bench hearing the matter on Wednesday. Among the claims made by Mkhwanazi were those of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system and that Mchunu intervened to disband the KZN political killings task team in order to shield individuals linked to politically connected crime syndicates. ConCourt cases In a long day of intense arguments, Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr said cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. 'This matter does not fall within this court's exclusive jurisdiction. Very few matters do, and this is not one of them. 'Any allegation that the power was exercised unlawfully falls under our constitutional scheme to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to consider first. Additionally, there is no pressing need for this court, on 10 days' notice, to decide the issues in this matter as a court of first and last instance,' Hofmeyr said. Zuma and MK party Hofmeyr also argued that even if the apex court were to entertain Zuma and the MK party's case, it is common cause that Ramaphosa enjoys broad discretion to appoint and dismiss ministers. 'That power, plainly, includes the lesser power of placing those ministers on leave while serious allegations of impropriety are being investigated. The constitution gives the president the power to decide how to manage his Cabinet. 'The wisdom of the choices he makes is to be judged by the democratic process and not the courts,' Hofmeyr argued. ALSO READ: 'We would have no country left if Zuma, MKP didn't fight Madlanga inquiry in ConCourt,' says Mpofu [VIDEO] Jurisdiction Hofmeyr argued that Zuma and the MK party have made no case why the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear their 'urgent case'. She said should the Constitutional Court widen its criteria for exclusive jurisdiction for the Zuma/MK party matter, it would mean that any case involving the exercise of the president's powers can be brought before the apex court. 'If this court in this judgment widens its jurisdictional ambit to take this case, it will likely mean, amongst other things, that all powers that are granted to the president under the Constitution, powers to assent to bills, powers to call for national referenda, to pardon offenders, to confer honours, will come here and on here as this court of first and final instance. And that would make a mockery of the prior jurisprudence of this court.' [WATCH] Kate Hofmeyr SC, on behalf of President Ramaphosa, says this matter does not fall within the Constitutional Court's exclusive jurisdiction, noting that very few matters do and this is not one of them. — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 ALSO READ: Zuma says Ramaphosa has no constitutional power to suspend Mchunu Urgency Justice Rammaka Mathopo asked Hofmeyer if she 'reckoned that the public importance of the matter could have been entertained by the High Court?' 'Certainly. There are manifold cases of great constitutional significance that appropriately start in the High Court. Justice Mathopo, this court has said in its own judgments how its workload is crippling currently. The expansion of its jurisdiction means it is a court that should be engaged as a court of last resort because that advances the administration of justice,' Hofmeyer said. 'There is such importance behind this point. The administration of justice requires this court to sit when it must sit and to deal with its extraordinary backlog that it currently faces. 'If this court can be the court that every litigant comes to when it alleges that there has been some irregular exercise of power by the president, all the other cases that legitimately must be here, the cases in which this court must sit as an appellate court are shifted down the roll, and that in our constitutional scheme is reason to be very cautious,' Hofmeyr said. 'Punishing consequences' Ramaphosa, in his heads of argument, said the urgent application initiated by Zuma directly to the Constitutional Court without approaching lower courts will have 'far-reaching and punishing consequences' for the apex court. 'Despite this, the court has been asked by the applicants to convene itself on hyper urgent timelines, and to determine alone, and finally, the meaning of constitutional provisions that will have far-reaching consequences for the exercise of power by the president well into the future.' Justice Steven Majiedt asked Hofmeyr why the Constitutional Court shouldn't hear the matter, 'given the fact that it goes to national security and that it implicates a wide range of actors, even the judiciary'. [WATCH] Kate Hofmeyr SC, on behalf of President Ramaphosa, says, 'When an interim interdict is sought, there is no final determination on the ultimate legal question. It is done at a prima facie level.' — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 Hofmeyr said that many cases involve matters of grave constitutional significance. 'But our constitutional scheme says those start in the high court. The high court is where you go. The high court moves urgently, more easily than this court does.' Hofmeyr added that former chief justice Magoeng Mogoeng 'spoke about the monopoly power of the apex court, which is why it needs to be highly selective about the cases it hears'. Mathopo asked what will happen to Cachalia's appointment if Hofmeyr is right that Zuma and the MK party have not made a case for direct access to the Constitutional Court, or proved that it has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case. Hofmeyr said Cachalia will take office and the Madlanga Inquiry will continue. 'And that is the consequence, Justice Mathopo, when litigants go before the wrong forum, it is just simply the consequence. If you go before the forum that didn't have jurisdiction, you suffer this consequence.' Jurisdiction She slammed the MK party and Zuma's case, saying that they put together court jurisdiction for this Constitutional Court in 'two paragraphs of their founding affidavit'. 'This is such an important issue, and they devoted two paragraphs to it.' Earlier, Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing Zuma, was asked by Justice Leana Theron to explain why Zuma and the MK party could not have brought their challenge in the high court and where they address this in their court papers. According to Mpofu, the case deals with 'crisp' constitutional issues that would inevitably result in the apex court dealing with this matter anyway. Mpofu argued that if Zuma and the MK party had taken the time required to go through the court system with the application, 'we would have no country left'. 'Crucify' Mchunu During the day's proceedings, Advocate Griffiths Madonsela, for Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, argued that Zuma and the MK party, in their founding papers, called this 'suspension by another name'. 'We embrace that characterisation. The MK party drew out spears, crying out, 'crucify him, crucify him.' That's what they said when the president arrived. They said he must dismiss the minister… in their founding papers. That's the case they made out. 'The case they made out in reply at page 236, paragraph 90, they repeated that claim. They said the minister should have been dismissed. He deserved to be dismissed, as it happened with Whitfield at paragraph 90 of the replying affidavit. 'It was in this context that the president, after consultation with Minister Mchunu, and you'll find this in the answering affidavit at page 172, paragraph 12, where the minister says that I was consulted by the president about this and he confronted me about the allegations made by General Mkhwanazi and I denied wrongful conduct on my part. And that under those circumstances, the president said, I couldn't dissolve the issue. I'll place Minister Mchunu on special leave,' Madonsela said. He focused his address on arguing that Ramaphosa does have the power to place Mchunu on special leave, which he accepts amounted to the minister being suspended. He also defended the rationality of the president's decisions in response to Mkhwanazi's accusations. [WATCH] Advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC, for Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, says: "The applicants said, in their founding papers, this 'suspension by another name,' and we embrace that characterisation." — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 Commission Ramaphosa set up a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the allegations and appointed Cachalia as acting police minister. Mpofu, representing Zuma, argued that the leave of absence granted to Mchunu is central to the MK party's case because if it had not been granted, there would be no need to appoint Cachalia in an acting position. According to the MK party, Mkhwanazi's accusations 'raise urgent and serious concerns around the constitution, the rule of law and national security'. While Ramaphosa said he had placed Mchunu on special leave to allow the Madlanga Commission to properly investigate the claims, Mpofu said questions need to be raised about whether 'another multibillion rand commission' was 'in the best interests of our people'. The MK party wants the court to decide urgently on the matter because Cachalia will assume office on 1 August. Cachalia Advocate Ngwako Maenetje, who also represented Ramaphosa, argued that Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on leave of absence was good governance because it ensured there was no possibility of interference in the investigation into Mkhwanazi's allegations. He also responded to questions about the president's decision to appoint Cachalia in an acting capacity while the Madlanga Inquiry investigates the allegations levelled against Mchunu. Maenetje reiterated that Ramaphosa cannot exercise his power to dismiss on the basis of serious allegations that are untested. Mpofu agreed that Ramaphosa had the power to appoint Cachalia as the police minister. 'What he did not have the power to do was appoint him to an acting position.' Judgment has been reserved. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
ConCourt reserves Judgment in MK Party's case against Ramaphosa over Mchunu leave, Cachalia appointment
Constitutional Court heard MK Party's case against President Cyril Ramaphosa's decisions to place Police Minister Mchunu on special leave and also the appointment of Professor Firoz Cachalia. Image: Kamogelo Moichela/IOL Politics Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in a case brought by MK Party against President Cyril Ramaphosa, following his decision to place Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave and the controversial appointment of Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting Police Minister. The case, heard in Johannesburg on Wednesday, centres on the legality and constitutionality of Ramaphosa's move to temporarily remove Mchunu after explosive allegations of political interference and unlawful conduct were made by KZN Police Commissioner Lt-Gen. Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. The matter further challenges the President's subsequent decision to appoint Cachalia as acting Minister of Police — despite Cachalia not being a Cabinet member. Arguing on behalf of MKP, Advocate Dali Mpofu SC described Ramaphosa's actions as "unconstitutional and ultra vires." He told the court that Ramaphosa overstepped his constitutional powers by placing Mchunu on 'leave of absence' and then delegating his ministerial duties to someone outside Cabinet. According to Mpofu, these actions contravened Section 98 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of acting ministers when a Cabinet member is absent or incapacitated. 'When the President said, 'I have decided to put Minister Senzo Mchunu on leave of absence with immediate effect,' and 'I have decided to appoint Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting Minister of Police,' these were definitive and final decisions,' Mpofu argued that these were not speculative intentions. 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 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. Next Stay Close ✕ Now the President wants to backpedal and reinterpret his own words — creating unnecessary confusion and undermining constitutional clarity, he said. Pressed by Justice Owen Rogers on whether the President might hold implied authority to grant such leave, Mpofu firmly rejected that notion. 'The President does not have implied powers to place ministers on special leave. If the Constitution does not explicitly allow it, it is not permissible,' he said. MKP insisted that the President erred by appointing Cachalia, who is not a Cabinet member, as acting Police Minister. The post was temporarily held by Mineral Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe until Cachalia assumes duties on August 1. 'The appointment of Cachalia is plainly unlawful,' Mpofu said. 'Section 98 mandates that only a Cabinet member may be appointed to act in another's place. Ramaphosa's failure to comply is a breach of a constitutional obligation.' Mchunu's legal team responded by criticising the MK Party's assertions as presumptive and lacking legal merit. In their heads of argument, they said the MK Party had acted as if allegations against Mchunu — specifically that he lied to Parliament about his dealings with alleged criminal Brown Mogotsi — were proven facts. They argued that MKP sought to compel the President to summarily dismiss Mchunu based solely on unproven claims. The ConCourt reserved its judgment, indicating it would deliver a ruling at a later date. IOL Politics
