Police minister Senzo Mchunu may have acted outside the scope of his legal authority by disbanding a specialised police task team, legal and policing experts say.
According to experts, any interference in such decisions could amount to an overreach of executive power, raising concerns about political meddling in law enforcement operations.
Last Sunday, KwaZulu-Natal SAPS head Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi made damning allegations against Mchunu, accusing him of ordering the disbandment of a political killings task team when the team had just uncovered details about a drug cartel in Gauteng. Mkhwanazi alleged that members of the judiciary, prosecutors, politicians and top cops were part of that cartel.
Mkhwanazi also alleged that deputy national commissioner Shadrack Sibiya obstructed justice, stalled investigations into political killings and organised crime, and shielded politically connected suspects. He alleged that on March 26 2025, 121 case dockets under investigation were taken away from the task team as directed by Sibiya, acting on the instruction of Mchunu to disband the task team.
He said this was done without the authority of the national or the provincial commissioner.
On Sunday President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that a commission of inquiry would be held to investigate the allegations and placed Mchunu on immediate leave.
Dr Mary Mangai, senior lecturer at the School of Public Management and Administration at the University of Pretoria, argues the minister of police does not have legal authority to intervene in or direct operational policing decisions, including the establishment or disbandment of investigative task teams.
She said such interference would contravene sections 207(2) of the constitution and 11 of the SAPS Act.
Unisa criminal law expert Dr Mpho Matlala agrees with Mangai that the minister has no powers by law to interfere in operational policing matters such as disbanding task teams.
“In terms of Act 68/1995, a minister can establish a civilian secretariat, convene its first meeting and establish its executive. Only such an executive can place a no-confidence motion against a provincial commissioner. Even then, the minister can only refer the matter to the national commissioner who will institute an inquiry and take the process forward. In operational matters, the act only allows the minister to sign appointments of members of the SAPS, executive directors such as DPCI, and determine salaries of the directors.”
“The act further allows the minister to make regulations, to suspend directors, to determine security clearances and measures for confidentiality, mediate on revenue estimates, authorise members of the SAPS to do duty outside South African borders, determine policy guidelines, sign Deeds of Commission for officers from rank of captain and authorise applications for early retirement of members,” he said.
Cobus Steenkamp, lecturer in police practice at North West university, argues that section 207 of the constitution authorises the minister to issue directives to the national commissioner regarding the control and management of the South African Police Service (SAPS).
However, he said this provision is broadly worded, which creates room for the minister to become involved in operational matters.
“While such involvement is not expressly prohibited, it must remain within the bounds of constitutional oversight. Any potential overreach is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. As a cabinet member and an MP, the minister is ultimately accountable to parliament,” Steenkamp said.
Matlala said the instruction was overreach and therefore unlawful, if indeed it was the minister who issued such a directive, “and it does spell political interference, but the allegations are yet to be tested”.
“[The minister can] recommend formal restructuring of some components without targeting only one. The recommendations should be for the national commissioners to implement and these should have passed cabinet or parliamentary muster, with clear goals, risk assessments and purported benefits. This should be a formal, transparent process, not some letters shared behind the scenes,” Matlala said.
Mangai said if the minister issued a directive to disband a task team, it would likely amount to an ultra vires act — beyond the legal powers conferred upon the minister.
“It would breach the doctrine of legality, which is a cornerstone of South Africa’s constitutional order,” she said.
Steenkamp notes that the scope of ministerial involvement in departmental operations was clarified in the case DA v Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (700/2022) [2024] ZASCA 65, where the judgment reinforced the principle that a minister must exercise their powers within a clearly defined legal and constitutional framework.
An unlawful decision cannot be justifiable, even when it comes from the president, and seniority or political principalship will not be a defence that Masemola can rely on. This is where the national commissioner should have put his foot down and told the minister, if the directive is not sanctioned by law, then the instruction will not be implemented.
— Dr Mpho Matlala, Unisa criminal law expert
He said though the constitution grants the minister a meaningful role in shaping police activities, it does not support unchecked or unilateral operational interference.
“In line with the spirit of constitutional governance, the intention was likely to ensure oversight, not control,” he said.
Steenkamp said if, as alleged, national commissioner Gen Fannie Masemola was excluded from the decision to disband the investigative task team, it could be argued that the minister exceeded the bounds of his discretionary powers — potentially amounting to a constitutional overreach.
Masemola last week denied authorising the disbandment of the task team.
Mangai said if the minister is found to have interfered in operational policing decisions, the implications are multifaceted.
According to Mangai, the legal implications are that the decision could be reviewed and set aside by a court as unlawful.
“The minister may be called to account in parliament and potentially face litigation for breaching the principle of legality. If it can be shown that the interference obstructed investigations into political killings, this could amount to obstruction of justice, carrying both criminal and civil consequences,” Mangai said.
On governance implications, Mangai said ministerial interference undermines the rule of law, erodes the independence of the police service and compromises public trust in law enforcement institutions.
She said it could also signal political manipulation of policing priorities, which is particularly dangerous in a democracy where policing must remain impartial and accountable.
“Interference in sensitive investigations, especially those concerning political violence, can also destabilise the already fragile trust between the state and victims’ families, communities and civil society. Moreover, it can discourage whistle-blowers and undermine the morale of investigators tasked with politically sensitive cases,” she said.
Matlala also agrees that the legal implications are that the instruction can be litigated upon in court and declared unlawful and invalid.
He said this will be at huge court costs, which the police and minister may have to cover at the expense of the taxpayers.
He said the governance implications may be that Masemola took and implemented an unlawful instruction and was therefore in breach of his fiduciary responsibilities.
“An unlawful decision cannot be justifiable, even when it comes from the president, and seniority or political principalship will not be a defence that Masemola can rely on. This is where the national commissioner should have put his foot down and told the minister, if the directive is not sanctioned by law, then the instruction will not be implemented. For Masemola, this was poor governance and there may be consequence management,” Matlala said.
According to Steenkamp, in light of the preceding discussion, parliament will ultimately determine the appropriateness of the minister’s actions, should the allegations be substantiated.
He said if it is proven that the minister used his position for personal gain or to improperly influence operational decisions, it is conceivable that he could be removed from office.
“It is important to treat this matter as case-specific rather than drawing general conclusions. In principle, the minister may play a role in shaping the operational direction of the police when necessary and appropriate. However, this instance is complicated by serious allegations involving corruption and potential links to organised crime. As such, the minister’s conduct must be examined with focused scrutiny and assessed directly in relation to the nature of these claims,” he said.
Steenkamp further argues that the relationship between the minister and the national commissioner is built on mutual trust and institutional co-operation.
However, he said signs of a breakdown in that relationship have emerged.
“One could argue that trust has been eroded to such an extent that the continued coexistence of both parties in their respective roles may no longer be viable — potentially leading to the departure of either the minister or the national commissioner,” he said.
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.