Trending: Incoming acting police minister Professor Firoz Cachalia hasn't endeared himself to the public

@Razor896 The question is: What is the purpose of deputy minister if they will just appoint someone else to replace the minister. President Cyril Ramaphosa is playing with us.

@Lebona_cabonena Interim police minister Firoz Cachalia was involved in R1-billion corrupt tenders in Gauteng, to cancel those corrupt tenders, it caused Gauteng R117 million.

@AldrinSampear Does the EFF have a case here? The president appointed Prof Cachalia as acting police minister in terms sec 91(3)C on the constitution. The EFF says there is no provision in the constitution to appoint a person from outside cabinet to act where there is no vacancy.

@Miz_Ruraltarain Firoz Cachalia neh..... How can he be trusted to unravel corruption when he was implicated in state capture at the Gupta house. Cachalia is no patriot. Back 2005, he opened the gateway to get immigrant cops. Mr Bean is going to bleed the honorable General Mkhwanazi.

@SABCNews The deputy police minister, Dr Polly Boshielo says in terms of the law, she cannot be appointed as acting minister.

@centralnewsza Incoming acting police minister Professor Firoz Cachalia has strongly criticised KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, stating that he “should not act in that way”, following a press briefing that exposed deep divisions in law enforcement.

@Funzi_Ngobeni Minister Mchunu is on special leave still earning R2.4 million/year with full perks. Prof. Cachalia is appointed acting with a new full ministerial package. Deputy Minister Mathale? Still there - doing what exactly? That’s ±R7 million/year in salaries alone for one portfolio! The cost of indecisiveness.

@JuliRee_Mts Hawu leadership, thina we are very welcoming of former student activists.

@dansmywholename Unless Mchunu resigns or is fired, the appointment of Cachalia is unconstitutional.

@ApstDeza President Cyril Ramaphosa has committed a grave constitutional error in appointing Firoz Cachalia – who is not a sitting minister – as acting minister of police. This move, wrapped in bureaucratic convenience and framed as routine governance, is in fact a violation of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
Section 91(3)(c) of the Constitution is unequivocal: the president may appoint no more than two ministers from outside the National Assembly. This clause pertains to full ministerial appointments – not acting positions.
Yet Cachalia has not been formally appointed to head any ministry under this provision.
The clause that deals with the temporary transfer of duties – Section 98 – allows the president to assign the powers to another minister. This provision presumes that the individual receiving such powers is already a minister, as it speaks explicitly to inter-ministerial delegation. Cachalia is not a minister. Senzo Mchunu is on special leave and unable to fulfil his duties due to the ongoing Commission of Inquiry. Under Section 98, the powers of his office could have been lawfully delegated to any currently serving minister. Instead, Ramaphosa bypassed this constitutional route and appointed a private citizen.
Cachalia’s role is thus built on a constitutional void. He was neither appointed under Section 91(3)(c) to his own ministry, nor was he a sitting minister to whom duties of another could be delegated under Section 98. The widespread assumption that the presidency must surely be acting within legal bounds is a textbook appeal to authority fallacy – a dangerous one. Just because a decision comes from the highest office does not make it constitutionally sound. Legal analysts, opposition parties, and commentators must interrogate the legality of executive decisions, especially when constitutional provisions are as clear as they are in this case. This is a serious instance of constitutional delinquency. It cannot be allowed to stand.

@MohapiSetenane Unfortunately, even if the unconstitutional appointment of Cachalia as the acting minister of police, was to be taken on legal review, it’s a well-known fact that the courts are with Ramaphosa.

DAILY NEWS