EDITORIAL: Ramaphosa misses another opportunity

Before Sunday’s address to the nation, observers were suggesting that President Cyril Ramaphosa’s response to serious corruption allegations about the police service would define his presidency and legacy. It has. He will forever be remembered as one who missed opportunities to be a consequential president.

On Sunday night, he announced the establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry to probe allegations of capture of the police service by non-state parties, placed his police minister and ally, Senzo Mchunu, on leave and, in an unprecedented move, named academic Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister. 

The commission, to be chaired by the retiring acting deputy chief justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, will investigate allegations made by Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, the KwaZulu-Natal provincial police commissioner, that the judiciary, prosecution and police were working in cahoots with criminal syndicates. Mchunu, he alleged, was an associate of a dubious tenderpreneur. 

Despite understandable public misgivings about commissions, this newspaper welcomes the commission and Cachalia’s appointment. It is hard to think of anyone more deserving of consideration from the ranks of active ANC leaders than Cachalia. The ANC, as Ramaphosa aptly observed years ago, is accused number one in corruption.

As for the commission, our preference would have been to pick a judge who has been in retirement for a while. This would have put daylight between their service and the allegations of involvement of the judiciary in the alleged malfeasance in the SA Police Service (SAPS).

Of course, this is not to suggest Madlanga lacks requisite impartiality. As a member of the apex court, he should be insulated from criminal decisions, which are the province of high courts.

The decision to put Mchunu on a leave of absence — effectively a suspension with full pay and benefits — boggles the mind. Ramaphosa had an opportunity to show us that he is serious about a sleaze-free administration. He missed it.

During his first term as president, he fired state capture accused ministers such as Malusi Gigaba, Des van Rooyen and Faith Muthambi. Memorably, he sacked Zweli Mkhize as health minister after allegations of wrongdoing were levelled at the then-health minister.

Controversially, he dismissed Nhlanhla Nene for a less serious offence. The then-finance minister lied to a journalist, not under oath, that he had not met the Gupta brothers. Last month, he fired Andrew Whitfield, a DA deployee, as deputy minister for trade, industry & competition for travelling abroad without his permission.

All these first-term and other actions raised hopes that he was serious about fighting corruption. The Mchunu decision dashes those hopes and diminishes his legacy.

He has fuelled speculation that he is protecting Mchunu, one of his KwaZulu-Natal enforcers, for fear of losing his support. Worse still, this has sparked unhelpful speculation that Mchunu might be in possession of information that may hurt the president’s standing.

To be blunt, the Mchunu decision appears to prioritise ANC unity over the national interest. In this regard, Ramaphosa makes himself indistinguishable from Jacob Zuma, his predecessor.

Clearly, Mchunu’s conscience also failed him. He could have asked to be relieved of his duties. He may still redeem himself by resigning. The chances of this happening are slim.

While he dealt with the Mchunu matter, Ramaphosa gave no guidance about what was to happen to those senior officers, such as crime detection head Lt-Gen Shadrack Sibiya, during the inquiry. Mkhwanazi accused Mchunu of brokering peace between him and a criminal (read: Sibiya).

Constitutionally, Ramaphosa’s actions are also open to questions. For example, while he has the power to appoint non-MPs to his cabinet, it’s not clear what the powers of an acting minister, outside the executive will be.

Commissions are notoriously costly and hardly achieve much. They have become a hallmark of Ramaphosa’s presidency when faced with hard decisions. During his second term, he continues to govern in a diffident fashion. His presidency will be remembered for a greater promise at its start, which ended up in disappointment after missed opportunities.

Correction: July 15 2025

In Monday’s editorial we erroneously referred to Firoz Cachalia as a former judge. This is incorrect. Business Day regrets the error.