uMkhonto weSizwe Party criticises Constitutional Court's double standards

The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party has accused the Constitutional Court of double standards after it unanimously dismissed the party’s plea for direct access to challenge a decision made regarding Police Minister Senzo Mchunu’s special leave and the establishment of the Madlanga Inquiry.

Nhlamulo Ndlhela, the MK Party's spokesperson, expressed frustration over what he described as signs of convolution during the court hearing. Ndlhela alleged that the judges seemed inclined to dismiss the matter on jurisdictional grounds, stating, “We could pick up that the judges were going to use the issue of jurisdiction to try and kick the matter out of court.”

In reflecting on the outcome, he drew parallels to past cases, asserting, “Let us not forget that this is the same Constitutional Court that at the first instance and last instance allowed for the incarceration of President Zuma without him having had his day in court.” He further asserted that the court’s recent judgment appeared to be a tactical move to evade a thorough judicial inquiry into claims of corruption and political misconduct.

The MK Party's main concern revolved around the special leave issued to Mchunu amid ongoing corruption allegations, which they claim is an improper shift of accountability. Ndlhela argued against the necessity of a judicial commission of inquiry, highlighting the effectiveness of a political killings task team already in place, led by General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, which had reportedly made significant arrests based on similar allegations.

Afterwards, advocate Dali Mpofu, representing the former President Jacob Zuma-led party, stated they would consult with Zuma in strategising potential next steps, while hinting that Zuma may return to court regarding this matter. Mpofu raised issues of inconsistency in the court’s handling of similar cases, questioning, “Why did the court not address the issue of access or jurisdiction when we were here for the secret ballot case or the impeachment case?”

During Wednesday's proceedings, Mpofu further argued that the legal grounding for placing a minister on leave without consent was shaky, insisting that such actions should be rare and sought legitimately, rather than enforced.

He contended that President Ramaphosa should have dismissed Mchunu outright rather than allowing him to remain in a ministerial position while under scrutiny for corruption, labelling the appointment of Professor Firoz Cachalia as an acting minister while Mchunu continues to receive full ministerial benefits as “irrational.”

In that same spirit, counsel for President Ramaphosa, Advocate Ngwako Maentjie, acknowledged that the president lacked the legal authority to place ministers on leave, thus adding a layer of complexity to the unfolding drama surrounding the alleged corruption within the government.

DAILY NEWS