In a heated legal battle unfolding in the Pretoria High Court, former President Jacob Zuma and his uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party are pushing for the court to consider the substance of their case against President Cyril Ramaphosa, rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds.
Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing the MK Party, argued on Wednesday that Ramaphosa is attempting to avoid the merits of the case by framing the matter as non-urgent. The case involves the President’s decision to establish the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Police and to appoint Professor Firoz Cachalia as Acting Minister of Police—moves the MK Party deems unconstitutional and politically motivated.
Advocate Mpofu urged the court not to grant President Ramaphosa another technical victory, referencing a previous Constitutional Court ruling that denied the MK Party and its leader Jacob Zuma direct access to challenge the electoral commission’s decisions.
“This is not a mere technical matter,” Mpofu told the full bench, headed by Acting Deputy Judge President Letty Molopa-Sethosa. “We are asking the court to allow us to argue the merits of why the establishment of this commission and the appointment of Professor Cachalia are invalid.”
The MK Party believes that Professor Cachalia’s appointment, in particular, circumvents the proper parliamentary process and concentrates too much power in the presidency—issues they argue are both urgent and fundamental to democratic accountability.
Zuma-Aligned MK Party Questions Legitimacy of Police Inquiry
The Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Police, recently announced by President Ramaphosa, has already commenced its hearings. Its purpose is to investigate alleged criminality and political interference within the police service. However, the MK Party, supported by Jacob Zuma, has raised strong objections, claiming the commission is politically selective and lacks legal foundation.
According to the party, the President’s unilateral establishment of the commission undermines the separation of powers and should be subject to judicial review.
The Zuma-backed legal team asserts that the case cannot wait, as both the inquiry and Professor Cachalia’s tenure are already underway—meaning any delay in legal intervention could render their objections meaningless.
On the other side of the courtroom, President Ramaphosa’s legal counsel has argued that the matter lacks urgency, stating that the commission has already begun and that the alleged harm is neither immediate nor irreversible.
They contend that the MK Party and Zuma are trying to politicize a process intended to strengthen law enforcement accountability and fight corruption within the police force.
Furthermore, the President’s team insists that the courts must respect constitutional boundaries and avoid being drawn into executive decisions unless there is a clear case of illegality or abuse of power.
Legal experts note that Zuma and the MK Party’s strategy reflects a broader political effort to cast President Ramaphosa as authoritarian and to undermine his anti-corruption initiatives by questioning their legitimacy in court.
Advocate Mpofu made it clear that the party is not asking the court to rule on political differences but on legal and constitutional violations. “The appointment of an Acting Minister of Police without parliamentary consultation is not a trivial matter,” Mpofu stated. “It cuts to the core of democratic accountability.”
The courtroom clash is just the latest chapter in the ongoing rivalry between Jacob Zuma and Cyril Ramaphosa. Since the split in the African National Congress (ANC) and the formation of the MK Party, Zuma has positioned himself as a political alternative, often framing Ramaphosa’s administration as elitist, undemocratic, and beholden to foreign interests.
The legal battles between the two leaders have increasingly spilled into public discourse, with the Phala Phala farm scandal, electoral disputes, and commissions of inquiry all forming part of a high-stakes power struggle.
The full bench of the Pretoria High Court is expected to rule on the urgency of the matter by Thursday afternoon. If the court agrees with Zuma and the MK Party that the issue is urgent, then arguments on the merits of the case could be heard immediately.
Should the court side with Ramaphosa’s legal team, however, the case may be delayed or dismissed without the court considering the legality of the president’s actions.
As South Africa watches closely, the Zuma-led MK Party continues its campaign to hold the current administration accountable through the courts. Whether the judiciary agrees to hear the matter urgently will have implications far beyond the current dispute—it could set a precedent for how future presidential decisions are challenged in a politically charged climate.
Whatever the outcome, the legal and political tensions between Zuma and Ramaphosa show no signs of easing, with the judiciary now caught in the middle of a battle that could shape South Africa’s democratic trajectory.
Source- EWN
