‘Travesty of justice’: MK Party slams Constitutional Court’s dismissal of Ramaphosa case

MK Party has lashed out at the Constitutional Court, following its dismissal of the party’s application challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to place Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Professor Firoz Cachalia.

The court determined that the issue did not merit its consideration and should instead be referred to the High Court, a decision that has ignited outrage among members of the MK Party.

Speaking at court, MKP national spokesperson, Nhlamulo Ndhlela, accused the judiciary of selectively applying justice, saying the ruling revealed "a travesty of justice" and exposed a legal system that "no longer serves the people."

“We are shocked, but not surprised. This is the same court that granted direct access to incarcerate President Jacob Zuma without trial,” Ndhlela said, referring to Zuma’s 2021 contempt ruling.

“Now, when faced with Ramaphosa’s alleged delinquency, they defer to technicalities.”

Ndhlela said the court’s refusal to hear the matter directly flies in the face of its precedent.

“Why was direct access granted in the Zuma, Zondo Commission, and secret ballot matters—but now denied in a case affecting every South African? The inconsistency is glaring,” he added.

He also criticised the judiciary for allegedly shielding Ramaphosa from accountability. 

“Phala Phala remains unresolved. The CR17 bank statements are still sealed. And now, even a basic attempt to hold the President to account through judicial channels is being stonewalled,” Ndhlela said.

Lady Justice is no longer blind—she has chosen a side, he stated.

The MK Party has not ruled out further legal or political steps.

“We will consult with our national leadership and legal team. But one thing is clear—South Africans must now ask if this judiciary still serves them,” he said. 

Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, representing the MKP, echoed concerns about the legal reasoning behind the court’s decision.

“The public must understand the difference between direct access and exclusive jurisdiction,” he said.

Mpofu said: “Direct access is granted in exceptional cases of national interest. What could be more compelling than allegations that the sitting President manipulated state processes for political expediency?”

Mpofu also challenged what he called the court’s double standards.

Direct access was granted in multiple high-profile cases involving Zuma, yet now it is deemed inappropriate for matters involving Ramaphosa. No one seems to ask why, he said. 

While Mpofu declined to comment in detail on the merits of the case, he confirmed that the party's legal team would be consulting with their client to explore next steps.

“There’s no case before the court now, but that could change. We may be back—here or elsewhere.”

The ConCourt’s decision added fuel to the already simmering tensions between the MKP and South Africa’s top courts.

With the 2026 local elections looming, the fallout from this judgment may become a rallying point for a party determined to position itself as the voice of the disillusioned.

kamogelo.moichela@iol.co.za 

IOL Politics