By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has dismissed the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and Jacob Zuma application to halt and challenge constitutionality of the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.
The commission was announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa in July 2025, following explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
Mkhwanazi alleged that Police Minister Senzo Mchunu had attempted to disband the Political Killings Task Team to shield politically connected criminals. Mchunu denied the claims, but Ramaphosa placed him on special leave and appointed Firoz Cachalia, who is not a Cabinet member, as acting police minister.
At the heart of MK Party’s legal challenge is Ramaphosa’s handling of the issue. It argues that he should have dismissed Mchunu outright rather than granting him paid leave and perks, and that Cachalia’s appointment was unconstitutional.
The MK party first approached the Constitutional Court to stop the inquiry, but the court dismissed its bid, saying it lacked jurisdiction. The case has now shifted to the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg.
Advocate Dali Mpofu, on behalf of MK Party, argued his client, it is not challenging the decision to set up an inquiry. It is about the decision to set up a judicial commission of inquiry in the present circumstance.
Mpofu said, Mchunu was being “paid to do nothing” for at least six months, the expected duration of the commission.
He insisted that the inquiry is inconsistent with the constitution and that the police force is being run illegally because Cachalia’s appointment was illegal.
He argued that, for a case to meet the criteria of urgency, there must be a contest about the rule of law, wastage of state resources, and allegations of abuse of state powers — all of which have been included in the MK party’s application “exceedingly so”.
Advocate Ngwako Maenetje, counsel for Ramaphosa, countered that the only “urgency” displayed by the MK party and Zuma was that the commission had already commenced at taxpayers’ expense.
“That means the horse has bolted. That doesn’t make the matter urgent,” he argued.
Maenetje said the high court may later decline to set aside the commission of inquiry in part B of the application.
He also highlighted that Cachalia had already assumed his new role on 1 August.
“This minister is in office and is performing his functions. That is not a justification for urgency, it counts against them.
“They should have come to court to stop the minister taking office. They tried, but they went to the wrong court so who is to blame for that?”
Judge Ronel Tolmay said when delivering her judgment, said the MK party and Zuma had presented “general statements” about the “catastrophic” events they claimed would result from Mkhwanazi’s allegations.
“In any event, despite the arguments of the applicants to the contrary, there is no indication in the present matter that the rule of law is under threat and that there will be serious human rights abuses if the impugned decision should stand pending the determination of a review in due course,” the judge said.
She added that the case, despite Mkhwanazi’s serious allegations, requires “careful judicial consideration”.
“Rushing it through the urgent court will be in the interest of justice.”
Tolmay said the law states that if an applicant cannot show evidence that it would suffer prejudice for the relief sought, then the case cannot be urgent.
The judge ultimately struck the application off the roll.
The Madlanga commission has six months to complete its work and deliver findings with its recommendations. An interim report is due within three months.