Zuma and MK Party fail in urgent court bid to halt Madlanga Commission
Former president Jacob Zuma and his uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) have failed in their attempt to urgently stop the work of the newly established Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.
On Thursday, the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria struck the case off the roll, ruling that it was not urgent. The judgment effectively clears the way for the commission, chaired by Constitutional Court Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, to continue its work investigating allegations of criminal infiltration within South Africa’s judiciary, police, and intelligence agencies.
Zuma’s objections to the commission
Zuma and the MK Party had launched their urgent bid arguing that the commission is unconstitutional. Their central claim was that it intrudes on the powers of existing judicial oversight bodies, particularly the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Magistrates Commission.
They argued that these statutory bodies already have the authority to investigate misconduct within the judiciary, and that the establishment of a new commission duplicates their roles and risks undermining judicial independence.
The party’s main objection, however, was directed at the appointment of Justice Madlanga as the commission’s chairperson. According to Zuma and the MKP, this amounted to a conflict of interest.
They insisted that “the judiciary cannot be both the accused and the investigator”, and argued that placing a sitting Constitutional Court justice in charge of a body probing possible wrongdoing within the judiciary blurred the line between impartial oversight and judicial self-defence.
Challenge to Ramaphosa’s decisions
The MKP’s legal challenge also extended beyond the commission’s terms of reference. Zuma’s party argued that President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave — and to appoint Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting minister — was both irrational and unconstitutional.
They claimed the president’s intervention in Cabinet arrangements was linked to the commission’s work, and further evidence of overreach.
Background to the inquiry
The Madlanga Commission was established in July after KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner, Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, made explosive allegations that organised crime syndicates had infiltrated South Africa’s police, intelligence services, and even the judiciary.
The claims, which rattled the security establishment, prompted Ramaphosa to announce a wide-ranging judicial inquiry. He said the commission’s role was not to replace oversight structures like the JSC, but to investigate the broader systemic allegations and, where necessary, refer cases to the appropriate statutory bodies for action.
“The commission does not replace existing oversight bodies, but will work alongside them. If any judge is found to be involved in wrongdoing, the case will be handed to the JSC,” Ramaphosa said at the time.
Zuma questions the commission’s cost
Zuma and his party also raised objections to the financial cost of the inquiry. With a budget of nearly R148 million for its initial six-month term, they questioned whether the commission would provide meaningful accountability or simply drain public funds.
For the MKP, the inquiry amounted to political theatre, launched to cover up failings within the state rather than address them. They argued that existing institutions were sufficient to handle allegations of judicial misconduct, without the need for what they described as a “parallel structure”.
Court rules case not urgent
Despite these arguments, the High Court in Pretoria declined to entertain the matter urgently. The judges ruled that the case did not meet the requirements for urgent enrolment and accordingly struck it off the roll.
This means that while Zuma and the MKP could still bring the case back before the court in the ordinary course, the commission’s work will go on unhindered in the meantime.
Political theatre outside court
The court’s decision came a day after the MKP staged protests outside the commission’s offices, voicing their opposition to its mandate and leadership. Demonstrators carried placards denouncing what they called “judicial capture” and demanding that Madlanga step aside.
Inside court, however, the judges were not swayed by the arguments presented, and emphasised that urgency had not been demonstrated.
What happens next
With the urgent application dismissed, the commission will continue its work as scheduled. It is tasked with probing wide-ranging allegations of corruption and political interference within the criminal justice system — allegations that, if proven, could have profound implications for both the judiciary and the executive.
The inquiry has already drawn public scrutiny due to its high budget, its sweeping mandate, and the sensitive nature of the claims it must investigate.
For Zuma, the setback marks another legal defeat in his long-running battle with South Africa’s institutions. While the MK Party insists it will continue to challenge the commission’s legitimacy, for now the Madlanga Commission retains the full authority of a presidentially appointed inquiry.
Whether it will succeed in uncovering the truth behind claims of syndicate infiltration and political manipulation remains to be seen, but Thursday’s judgment has ensured that its work will not be delayed.
Follow Us on Twitter
