President Cyril Ramaphosa and his predecessor, Jacob Zuma, locked horns in the High Court in Pretoria on Thursday.
Zuma and his uMkhonto weSizwe Party is questioning the legality of Ramaphosaโs decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave and to appoint former judge Firoz Cachalia as acting minister.
Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing Zuma and the MK Party, told the full bench that the case is โself-evidently urgentโ and cannot be pushed to next yearโs court roll. Mpofu argued that the matter strikes at the heart of constitutional governance, the rule of law, and the stateโs ability to fight crime.
"If you assume, for purposes of urgency, that criminal syndicates control aspects of the criminal justice system, then it means the whole country is on the brink of collapse. How can such a matter wait until next year?"
He urged the court to consider the human cost of delays, pointing to allegations that over 120 political killing dockets have been removed from active investigation.
"Imagine one of those dockets is your brother's or motherโs case, and you are told it can wait until next year. These are not just files; they are human lives."
The MK Party contends that Ramaphosaโs decision is unconstitutional, financially wasteful, and amounts to shielding a political ally.ย
Mchunu was placed on paid leave following allegations by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that he attempted to disband the Political Killings Task Team.
Ramaphosa subsequently appointed Cachalia to act in his place while establishing a commission of inquiry into the claims.
But Ramaphosaโs legal team pushed back. Advocate Ngwako Maenetje SC argued that Zumaโs challenge was neither urgent nor proper before the court.
"The applicants merely rely on broad allegations of executive overreach; they have not demonstrated why this court must jump the queue to hear their case on an urgent basis."
He reminded the judges that Zumaโs lawyers had already sought direct access to the Constitutional Court in July, but their request was dismissed.ย
"If the Constitutional Court believed the matter was truly urgent, it would have allowed direct access. Its refusal counts against the applicants, not in their favour," Maenetje said.
Maenetje also accused Zumaโs team of contributing to the delay, saying they had waited weeks before launching the High Court application.
The hearing continues.