Cyril Ramaphosa’s appointment paradox
Cyril Ramaphosa has found himself on the same legal battlefield as his predecessor as he attempts to shield his decisions around cabinet appointments from scrutiny
Former president Jacob Zuma’s bad decisions spawned multiple far-reaching court rulings — almost all of which found some of his most significant choices to be irrational and unlawful. Zuma’s appointment of two national directors of public prosecutions and the firing of another, for example, were all deemed illegal by SA’s highest court. The Constitutional Court also upheld judgments lambasting the then president’s poor and self-interested choices in response to then public protector Thuli Madonsela’s reports on his Nkandla homestead and state capture. In short, during Zuma’s nine years in office, SA’s courts were asked, again and again, to evaluate the rationality behind and legality of some of his most crucial decisions. And, again and again, the courts found those decisions to be wanting. But, even as Zuma’s court losses piled up, one aspect of his decision-making remained immune from legal challenge: his appointment and firing of cabinet ministers. That is, until midnight on Marc...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.