Johannesburg – The Constitutional Court has refused to hear an urgent application brought by the uMkhonto we Sizwe (MKP) to stop the swearing-in of Professor Firoz Cachalia, who has been appointed to act as Police Minister.
The MKP was also challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa’s establishment of the commission of inquiry to probe allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
The KZN top cop has made serious allegations against high-ranking officials, including Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, claiming political interference in police operations and links to criminal activities.
Police Minister Mchunu was placed on special leave by President Ramaphosa while the matter was being probed.
The MKP, on Wednesday, 30 July 2025, made a spirited challenge of the arrangement made by President Ramaphosa, which also saw Mines Minister Gwede Mantashe act as Police Minister in the interim.
However, in a unanimous judgment on Thursday, 31 July 2025, the Constitutional Court dismissed the MKP application to challenge Minister Mchunu’s special leave and the establishment of the commission of inquiry, saying the applicants failed to establish grounds for “exclusive jurisdiction” or justify “urgent direct access” to the apex court.
Justice Rammaka Mathopo read the ruling, which stated that no case had been made for direct access to the Constitutional Court and that full reasons for the order would follow.
Meanwhile, the Presidency has announced that Professor Cachalia will be sworn in on Friday, 1 August 2025, to take his acting police minister appointment.
Explaining the move, the Presidency said: “In accordance with section 91(3)(c), President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the appointment of Professor Cachalia as Minister in the National Executive with the expressed intention that following the swearing-in, Minister Cachalia will be designated to act as Minister of Police”.
Dissapointed MKP lawyer Advocate Dali Mpofu, who had argued that placing Minister Mchunu on special leave was “illegal”, indicated that the party’s legal team would be studying the judgment and consider options.
