Cyril must cough up for Zuma’s firing of Gordhan, Jonas

President Cyril Ramaphosa has been ordered to pay costs in an application for leave to appeal a high court ruling on the disclosure of records of decisions relating to the review of Cabinet changes.

The matter dates back to 2017 when the DA approached the High Court in Pretoria after former president Jacob Zuma’s infamous midnight Cabinet reshuffle in which then finance minister Pravin Gordhan and his deputy, Mcebisi Jonas, were fired.

The DA challenged the constitutional validity of the reshuffle in terms of Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court. It argued at the time that, through Rule 53, it sought the disclosure of the record of Zuma’s decision.

The party succeeded. However, after Ramaphosa was appointed, the presidency took the matter to the highest court to clarify whether Rule 53 was applicable when it came to executive decisions.

Yesterday, in a majority judgment penned and handed down by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, Ramaphosa’s application was dismissed and he was ordered to pay costs.

Justice Mogoeng said in the majority judgment, it was held that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

“Not only because the issue is moot but also because the order sought to be appealed against is interlocutory in character,” he said.

The interlocutory nature of the order and its mootness created a force that was “fatal” to the prospects of the court exercising its discretion in the president’s favour.

Justice Mogoeng said the president’s “thirst” for clarity and certainty would not be quenched by a judgment that merely resolved to question if the Rule 53 was wide enough to apply to executive decisions.

“Here, the main application to which the interlocutory order owes its life, has been withdrawn and it is in the main application that the reviewability of the president’s decision would have been decided,” he said, adding interlocutory orders were ordinarily not appealable.

“This is not a case where the interests of justice require that we exercise our discretion to decide a moot issue,” he wrote.

The judgment stated that in the future, when the president’s decision to appoint or dismiss is questioned, the matter would be challenged properly and guidance will be provided by the Constitutional Court.

The office of the presidency did not comment.