A political analyst says Former President Jacob Zuma and the MK Party’s move to file an urgent application in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to appoint Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting Police Minister, is a waste of time, for both Zuma and the courts.

The legal bid comes after a defeat in the Constitutional Court on July 31, 2025, when the MK Party’s earlier application was dismissed because it failed to engage the court’s exclusive jurisdiction.

The dispute centres on President Ramaphosa’s appointment of Cachalia as acting Minister of Police after placing incumbent Minister Senzo Mchunu on leave. 

Zuma and the MK Party argue that the appointment is unconstitutional, citing alleged legal and procedural violations.

The challenge also extends to the establishment of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, chaired by Judge Mbuyiseli Madlanga, set up to investigate explosive allegations levelled against Mchunu. 

These allegations were made by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who accused Mchunu and other senior police officials of being part of criminal syndicates and interfering in politically sensitive investigations. Mkhwanazi claimed elite anti-corruption units had been disbanded under their watch.

Ramaphosa has since established a Judicial Commission of Inquiry in response to the allegations, while Parliament continued its investigations.

Speaking to IOL News, Independent political analyst Goodenough Mashego argued that Zuma and the MK Party were wasting judicial time.

“I think it’s a waste of time on the part of the MK Party, but it’s also a waste of time for the courts. South Africa’s judiciary should be focusing on real cases, not this kind of civil litigation that goes nowhere,” he said.

Mashego said that Ramaphosa’s decision to appoint Cachalia was legally sound.

“Ramaphosa’s appointment of Cachalia is based on what the Constitution allows the President to do. The MK Party was right to approach the Constitutional Court previously on the issue of having two ministers of police, which was a valid concern at the time. In fact, Ramaphosa had earlier appointed Minister Gwede Mantashe as acting police minister – likely recognising that deputy ministers lack executive powers to act in such a role,” he said.

“However, this latest challenge against Cachalia’s appointment is a waste of time and resources.”

Mashego also believes the MK Party’s repeated legal actions are politically motivated attempts to gain visibility.

“You must remember, after the May 2024 elections, the MK Party challenged the voter turnout, then the swearing-in of Parliamentarians, and several other matters. They’ve realised that despite their significant electoral support, their brand is not being heard like an official opposition party. These legal challenges are part of a broader strategy to stay in the public eye.”

However, another analyst, Solly Rashilo, also chipped in, saying that the perception of whether the legal battle is a waste of time depends on one’s perspective.

“From a legal standpoint, it’s not necessarily a waste of time if there’s a legitimate constitutional issue at hand. Section 91(3) of the Constitution allows the President to appoint no more than two ministers from outside the National Assembly,” Rashilo said.

“This challenge may hinge on interpreting whether the appointment of an acting minister in these circumstances is constitutional. It’s the role of the courts to answer such questions.”

Rashilo added that from a political perspective, the move could be seen as part of a broader campaign to keep Ramaphosa’s administration under pressure and to assert the MK Party’s relevance.

“This is political posturing, regardless of the court’s final decision. It’s a strategy to present themselves as defenders of the Constitution and critics of executive overreach,” he said.

“From a public perception standpoint, though, many see these repeated court battles as distractions from the country’s pressing problems. There’s definitely a fatigue factor, particularly given Zuma’s long history with the courts.”

However, for Zuma supporters, Rashilo said, the legal challenge might be seen as a principled stand.

“For those who back Zuma and the MK Party, this is about holding the President accountable and challenging what they see as a misuse of executive power. That narrative, whether or not it holds up legally, can still be politically powerful.”

simon.majadibodu@iol.co.za

IOL Politics

Source link