The court also dismissed the challenge to the appointment of Firoz Cachalia as Acting Police Minister and the establishment of the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.
Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party have been dealt another blow after their urgent bid to revive their legal challenge against President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on a special leave of absence has been dismissed.
The decision was handed down in the Pretoria High Court on Tuesday, 9 December 2025.
The court also dismissed the challenge to the subsequent appointment of Firoz Cachalia as Acting Minister as well as the establishment of the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry into allegations of rot, corruption and interference in the police and the criminal justice system.
Ruling
Judge Anthony Millar ruled that suspending a minister pending serious but unverified allegations, and instituting an independent inquiry to establish the facts, are both rational and lawful exercises of executive power.
“In this instance, the President, on the facts presented, did rationally apply his mind to the establishment of the Madlanga Commission. It is a decision that cannot be faulted from a legality and rationality vantage point. In the premises, the entire application falls to be dismissed.”
ALSO READ: Zuma vs Ramaphosa legal showdown set for September
Suspension
Millar said it was apposite for the court to briefly address the issue of the suspension or interdict referred to in the Notice of Motion.
“Mr [Dali] Mpofu correctly submitted that a setting aside of a President’s decision required confirmation by the Constitutional Court – hence a suspension pending confirmation. As already outlined, this Court is not making such a declaration. We do mention in passing that a temporary interdict or temporary relief mentioned in section 172(2)(b) still has to tick all the boxes applicable to an interdict remedy, failing which a court must refuse to exercise its discretionary powers31.
ALSO READ: Zuma files urgent bid to challenge Ramaphosa’s Mchunu decision after ConCourt loss
“On this score, the applicants have failed to persuade the Court. What the applicants sought is a temporary interdict contemplated in section 172(2)(b) of the Constitution. Since no constitutional invalidity order has been made, that should be the end of the enquiry,” Millar said.
The application was dismissed on the merits, with each party to pay its own costs.
Zuma vs Ramaphosa
Zuma and the MK party wanted the high court to set aside Ramaphosa’s decision to place Mchunu on special leave.
They also sought the invalidity, nullity, and unconstitutionality of the appointment of Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry, and their setting aside.
ConCourt
The Constitutional Court, on 31 July 2025, ruled that the application does not engage the court’s jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in their matter against Ramaphosa.
Ramaphosa’s lawyer, Kate Hofmeyr, argued that cases that could be decided exclusively by the Constitutional Court were very limited, prompting Zuma to bring the matter to the High Court.
Zuma’s challenge to Ramaphosa’s decisions follows allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police chief Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who claimed that the South African justice system was infiltrated by criminals, and that Mchunu intervened to disband the KZN political killings task team in order to shield individuals linked to politically connected crime syndicates.
ALSO READ: MK party and Zuma suffer blow as ConCourt rules in Ramaphosa’s favour [VIDEO]
