Apex court's Zuma ruling on NDPP could open attack on Ramaphosa

Lawyers say president's actions irrational

- By Setumo Stone

A legal challenge to President Cyril Ramaphosa's appointment of the country's top prosecutor hinges on a landmark Constitutional Court ruling against his predecessor, Jacob Zuma, in a precedent that defines when presidential decisions can be struck down for an irrational process.

Law firm B Xulu and Partners Incorporated on Wednesday filed an amended application in the North Gauteng High Court, in Pretoria, seeking to review and set aside the appointment of Adv Andy Mothibi as national director of public prosecutions (NDPP), citing a precedent secured by the DA against Zuma in 2012.

The core of their argument is that the president's actions were irrational and procedurally unfair, directly invoking the precedent set in Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa—the case that nullified Zuma's appointment of Adv Menzi Simelane as NDPP.

The application reveals that Ramaphosa appointed Mothibi on January 6, immediately after an advisory panel he had established reported that “none of the persons interviewed were suitable for appointment”.

Crucially, this decision was made while the firm's initial court challenge to the panel's allegedly flawed process was pending.