The Constitutional Court states that the MK party and its leader, Jacob Zuma, have not adequately explained why they did not pursue the matter against President Cyril Ramaphosa in the High Court before approaching the Apex Court.
Justice Rammaka Steven Mathopo handed down reasons for its ruling against the MK party and Zuma, in its matter against Ramaphosa, on Friday.
The MK party and Zuma brought an application challenging Ramaphosa’s decision to place Mchunu on special leave.
They also sought to have the appointment of Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry declared invalid, null, void, unconstitutional, and set aside.
Reasons
Rammaka said, section 167, subsection 2b of the constitution empowers the High Court to grant interim relief pending confirmation
He said the MK party and Zuma should have approached the High Court first, and that the application did not engage the court’s jurisdiction for direct access to the MK party and Zuma in their matter against Ramaphosa.
“The applicants have not adequately explained why they did not pursue this available avenue. The fact that appellate or confirmation proceedings might follow a high court judgment cannot undermine what the constitution says about the proper allocation of jurisdiction.
“The importance of issues in the case does not, without more, constitute exceptional circumstances and justify this court being a Court of First and Last instance. The more important and complex the issue in the case, the more compelling the need for this court to be assisted by the views of another court, ” Rammaka said.
“In the result, the application cannot succeed on either threshold,” Mathopo said.
NOW READ: ConCourt to deliver reasons for ruling against MK party and Zuma application
About the Author
