Ramaphosa – In the face of growing political backlash and a looming Constitutional Court case, Ramaphosa defends decision to appoint Firoz Cachalia as acting Minister of Police, arguing that the move is essential to preserving public confidence in South Africa’s law enforcement institutions.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has submitted a detailed affidavit to the Constitutional Court, justifying his recent actions involving Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu. These include placing Mchunu on special leave, appointing Cachalia in his place, and launching a commission of inquiry into alleged corruption within the police service. The moves have sparked controversy, particularly from the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party, which is challenging their legality in court.
In his submission to the court, Ramaphosa defends decision to expand his Cabinet temporarily, insisting the costs involved are justified due to the exceptional circumstances facing the country’s law enforcement agencies.
Ramaphosa Defends Decision as Constitutionally Justified and Necessary for Stability
“The decision to appoint an acting minister is not taken lightly,” Ramaphosa said. “It is rooted in the responsibility to maintain the integrity of critical public institutions, particularly in a sector as vital as policing and public safety.”
The president argued that allowing allegations—still unproven—to dictate permanent dismissals would set a dangerous precedent. Instead, placing a minister on special leave, he said, is a measured response that protects both the individual’s rights and the executive’s ability to govern effectively.
Ramaphosa maintained that appointing Firoz Cachalia, a respected legal and public policy expert, serves the public interest. His selection—despite not currently being a Member of Parliament—falls within the president’s constitutional powers and reflects a need to protect the credibility of the criminal justice system.
According to Ramaphosa, “The decision to bring in someone from outside Parliament is not without precedent and is permitted under section 91(3)(c) of the Constitution. It enables the president to appoint no more than two ministers from outside the National Assembly.”
He emphasized that Cachalia’s legal background and track record make him uniquely suited to oversee a portfolio marred by corruption allegations and political tension.
The president strongly rejected claims by the MK Party that his decision to place Minister Mchunu on special leave was politically motivated or based on factional loyalty. “This was not a decision made out of favoritism or political calculation,” Ramaphosa stated. “Rather, it was a necessary step to ensure the stability of the executive while serious allegations are being investigated.”
Ramaphosa cited past examples, such as former Health Minister Zweli Mkhize, who was also placed on special leave during the Digital Vibes scandal. “This approach allows investigations to take place without prejudice, while maintaining the functional integrity of government,” he said.
He further argued that prematurely dismissing a minister based solely on untested allegations would undermine due process and diminish the president’s capacity to make nuanced, case-by-case judgments.
“Were I not empowered to suspend a minister pending the outcome of an investigation, I would be compelled in all cases—regardless of the circumstances—to dismiss that minister simply on the basis of allegations. This would unduly limit my powers to exercise judgment,” Ramaphosa wrote.
The Constitutional Court is set to hear the case brought forward by the MK Party on Wednesday. The party argues that Ramaphosa overstepped his authority by creating what they call a “shadow Cabinet” and bypassing Parliament in appointing Cachalia.
Political analysts suggest the case could set important legal precedents regarding executive authority and Cabinet appointments, particularly in times of political turbulence or corruption scandals.
Despite the controversy, Ramaphosa defends decision as necessary for upholding the rule of law and reinforcing the credibility of state institutions.
“This is not just about Cabinet reshuffles,” said a senior government official. “It’s about setting a tone that integrity and accountability matter—and that government has a duty to act when confidence in its institutions is at risk.”
As South Africa grapples with continued revelations of corruption and public sector inefficiency, Ramaphosa defends decision to act decisively. By placing Mchunu on leave, appointing Cachalia, and launching an inquiry into police misconduct, the president is signaling a willingness to confront institutional decay—even at the risk of political backlash.
Whether the Constitutional Court will uphold his actions remains to be seen. But for now, Ramaphosa is standing by his choices, insisting that inaction would have been a far greater cost to the nation.
Source- EWN
