The Judiciary has come under attack following the High Court judgment ordering that President Jacob Zuma provide reasons for his latest Cabinet reshuffle.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) approached the High Court in Pretoria to ask for the record and explanation of Zuma's decision as well as the intelligence report he reportedly relied on to sack former finance minister, Pravin Gordhan and his deputy Mcebisi Jonas.
Experts have raised different arguments regarding the ruling, disagreeing on whether courts court should interfere on Zuma's decision to fire Gordhan.
Constitutional law expert, Pierre de Vos, has said every exercise of public power can be reviewed by the courts on the basis of rationality.
On the other hand University of Cape Town's Professor Richard Calland says the court should stay out of the matter, and there will be problems when the court starts to decide who is in or out of government.
Calland also explained that because Zuma has not admitted to the intelligence report as the basis of dismissing Gordhan it will be difficult to prove that his decision was irrational as per the DA's court order.
Listen to Prof Calland's analysis below...
Constitutional law expert Khomotso Moshikaro says both Calland and De Vos are correct.
Moshikaro says public power can be reviewed.
He explains that a court can ask for reasons, but "the better question to have asked is whether the court ought to have asked for reasons".
Moshikaro also supports Calland's argument that Zuma and the Presidency have not publicly stated why he fired Gordhan.
He says the President could say that sacking Gordhan was a political decision and that there was an irretrievable breakdown in their relationship.
Moshikaro says the President does have the right to ask for an appeal.
Listen to the audio below to hear Moshikaro arguing courts "have been overreaching for a long time"...
This article first appeared on 702 : [LISTEN]Law experts divided on whether courts should interfere in Gordhan axing