When Western Cape Premier Helen Zille finally appointed a Commission of Inquiry into reports of SAPS inefficiency in Khayelitsha and the breakdown of trust between the Khayelitsha community and the police (buckling under sustained pressure from civil society groups), it was widely seen as a good first step towards addressing the shockingly high crime rates – one of the highest in the country – in Khayelitsha.
But then, inexplicably, Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa rushed to court to try and stop the Commission from continuing with its work. Mthethwa seemed particularly worried about the fact that the Commission could subpoena members of SAPS to force them to testify before it. As the Constitution requires various spheres of government to co-operate with one another in “mutual trust and good faith” by, amongst others, “consulting one another about matters of common interest”, Mthethwa told the court that he was not adequately consulted about the move to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. Mthethwa furthermore argued that the premier encroached upon the powers of the national government by appointing a Commission of Inquiry into SAPS inefficiency in the province.
The Western Cape High Court (in a majority decision) rejected Mthethwa’s application for an interim interdict to stop the Commission from doing its work. The minority argued that – in terms of the principles of co-operative government – there was a duty on Zille first to engage with the Minister before appointing such a Commission. Now Mthethwa has approached the Constitutional Court in a last-ditch effort to stop the Commission from finding out why the SAPS in Khayelitsha is so dysfunctional.
In my opinion Minister Mthethwa is cynically using spurious legal arguments concocted by overpaid lawyers (and thereby wasting millions in taxpayer’s money), to stop an inquiry that could help to improve policing in Khayelitsha.
Section 206(8) of the Constitution explicitly empowers the provincial government (whose executive authority is vested in the premier) to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into any complaints of police inefficiency or a breakdown in relations between the police and any community in that province. The section also states that once the Inquiry has been completed, the premier must make recommendations to the Minister of Police about how to address any problems relating to the SAPS management.
There is no constitutional duty on a premier to consult with the minister about the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. In my opinion, both the minority and majority judgments got this completely wrong. As the Constitution explicitly grants the premier the power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into police conduct, the Premier does not have to consult the minister before exercising it. This is because the appointment of such a Commission is not a “matter of common interest” between the Premier and the minister. Rather it is a matter only constitutionally of interest to the premier who was granted the exclusive power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. It only becomes a matter of interest to the minister once the Commission delivers its report.
Where the Constitution explicitly and exclusively grants a power to one organ of state, that organ of state can and must exercise that power without having to consult with other organs of state. To hold otherwise would be to require the kind of incessant and debilitating consultation that would bring government at all levels to a grinding and permanent halt.
Just as the president does not have to consult the premier before appointing a Commission of Inquiry into the failure to deliver textbooks to schools in Limpopo or into the cost implications of introducing a National Health Insurance scheme, so the premier does not have to consult the minister when appointing a Commission in terms of section 206. It is only once the Commission has delivered its report that the premier has to consult the minister about what steps could be taken to improve policing in Khayelitsha. As the implementation of policing in the province is not an exclusive provincial competence but one shared between the national and provincial spheres of government, the various parties must consult about it as required by the Constitution.
In fact, I would argue that the co-operative government provisions in the Constitution require the minister (as well as the National and Provincial Police Commissioners) to co-operate with the Commission, to ensure that police officers testify before it and that the Commission is granted access to all the necessary documents to complete its task. By rushing to court and failing to co-operate with a Commission legally appointed by the premier in terms of the powers granted to her by the Constitution itself, the minister is in breach of his constitutional obligations to assist and support the premier and to avoid legal proceedings against the provincial government. This is because the minister and the National and Provincial Commissioners share the constitutional powers to manage the police with the provincial government (as they do not share the powers to appoint a Commission). In my view the High Court should never even have considered the merits of the case and should have dismissed it out of hand.
Of course, once the Commission has concluded its Inquiry, both the premier and the minister will be required to engage with its report and would have to co-operate to try and find solutions for the abysmal management of the SAPS in many of the poorest areas of Cape Town. The minister and his legal team are subverting the principles of co-operative government by trying to interfere with the constitutionally mandated exercise of powers of the premier.
There is no rational reason for the minister to have gone to court to try and stop this Commission of Inquiry. Politically, the minister can only lose by appearing to want to protect possible corrupt or incompetent police officers rather than wanting to protect the ordinary people of Khayelitsha. Moreover, the power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the police is a limited one, and exercising this power will not have immediate policy consequences. A Commission is no more than a fact-finding exercise – it cannot make binding decisions. Where a premier appoints such a Commission she can therefore never be said to assume powers of functions reserved for the national government. Once the Commission has concluded its Inquiry, the premier will have to consult the minister on what should be done – as required by the 206(8) and the co-operative government provisions of the Constitution.
Which leaves us with one of two options: either the minister is trying to cover up corruption, nepotism or incompetence in the SAPS in Khayelitsha, or he is allowing his own ego and his antagonism towards the opposition to cloud his judgment – to the detriment of the people of Khayelitsha. DM
- The curious case of the pastor punished for honesty
- What’s that smell? Must be the name droppings.
- KZN University: A storm in a (Zulu) teacup
- Nkandla: The details will, and should, be made public
- Great speech vs. hate speech: how it really works
- Cape Town evictions: Brutal, inhumane, and totally unlawful
- The new, tamer Secrecy Bill: Still not constitutional
- Zuma and the Guptas: the ‘symbiosis’ continues
- Discrimination is illegal. When will we learn this?
- It’s not a democracy if our children aren’t equal
- An upside-down world: What would happen if we cared about the ‘others’?
- JSC: Let’s inject some common sense, shall we?
- Rose-tinted amnesia: The struggle to ‘rebrand’ SA’s Apartheid past
- Cardinal Napier: the plot thickens
- Redefining ‘merit’: first task for a transformed JSC
- The dating race
- Putting the ‘dread’ into ‘dreadlocks’
- Liars, damn liars, and the SA government
- Constitution clear on troops in the CAR: Zuma must talk to Parliament
- SA in CAR: the questions that remain
- Why are South African soldiers dying in CAR?
- Covering up sexual abuse is a crime, Cardinal
- Nkandla: Oh, what a tangled web we weave…
- The education MEC, children's heads, and a knobkerrie
- In black and white: the truth about ‘unconstitutional’ race quotas in universities
- Losing battles: Why the FMF doesn’t stand a chance
- Democracy vs. traditional leadership: the delicate ballet
- Police brutality comes as a surprise? Really?
- Sometimes a Tweeter is just a Twit
- Lady Justice’s scales appear to be faulty
- Pistorius trial: The legal principles that will decide the case
- Oscar Pistorius case: Bail isn’t denied as easily as you think
- Public opinion: Is there really any danger of prejudice against Oscar?
- All we know is that a woman is dead
- The secret history: Unearthing the mysterious Presidential Manual
- Sexwale abuse allegations: Very much our business
- SA’s rape epidemic: The limitations of outrage
- Will the real freedom of expression please stand up?
- But what of the people of Khayelitsha?
- WWE Smackdown: Zille vs. TNA edition
- Nkandla: Everything that's wrong with the Zuma government
- Nkandla: The spinning, mincing, dicing - and the report we're not allowed to read
- Beyond all (t)reason
- Judicial transformation: South Africa's appalling non-commitment
- The criminal stupidity of criminalising teen sex
- Careful, Mr Mthembu: The re-emergence of Apartheid's 'volksvreemdes' mentality
- Unequal education: the problem with providing learning for all
- SA troops in CAR: Why we should all be worried
- Mulholland column: Ignorance squared is still ignorance
- Elective processes: Something is rotten in the kingdom of the ANC
- Outa application: Courts can't fix political processes
- Chaskalson, SACP and the Constitution: Don’t touch me on my liberalism
- Carlisle and car key confiscation: Don't go with the (traffic) flow
- Dear Contralesa, please approach your nearest healer for a diagnosis
- Simelane: You can't end what never truly began
- Playing by the rules: The balancing act of Judge Dennis Davis
- Sunlight is the best disinfectant
- Lenasia: The haunting abandonment of humanity
- Lies, damn lies, and Zuma's 'bond'
- Show us the money, Mr Zuma
- The opposition doth protest too much: Why the ANC is hellbent on crushing debate
- Note to Zuma: Try commanding respect, not demanding it
- Dear Nxesi, your fantasy is damaging South Africa’s reality
- Running the Gauntlett: Why the struggle for appointment?
- Affirmative action: a decidedly middle-class problem
- Hate crime: there is no such thing as an excuse - ever
- Mfeketo and Zuma: You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours?
- Ramaphosa: Where does corruption begin and end?
- The Zuma recordings: SA is the crayfish, corruption the boiling water
- No safety in numbers: Why a bigger opposition isn't a stronger opposition
- Specs, lies and audiotape - the hidden Zuma recordings
- The ANC on school closures: can they win?
- Thuli Madonsela: The difference between 'unpopularity' and 'misconduct'
- Democracy: it starts in Parliament
- The National Key Points Act: not just unconstitutional, but totally invalid
- Simelane and 'rational' thought
- Halt the witch-hunt, Minister
- Home is where the taxpayer's money is
- Will Malema's case stand up in court?
- South Africa's Striking Miners: A Menace to Society? Or just to the middle class?
- E-tolling judgement: Sorry for Gauteng, but it's perfectly lawful
- Silence is golden - if the speakers are criticising the State
- Malema at the SANDF: Inappropriate? Yes. Illegal? No.
- Freedom of religion: not so free after all
- Whites against Woolworths: doth they protest too much?
- From the NPA with fear, favour - and prejudice
- Marikana murder charge withdrawal: the first glimmer of sanity
- Abuse, Inc: The 'miners made us do it' murder charge
- A marriage made in hell
- Lonmin's Farlam Commission: not bad, not bad at all
- Marikana: Avoidable, unconstitutional… and entirely predictable