While two recent landmark and unanimous full-bench high court judgments are welcome for their outcomes, there is a worrisome inconsistency in reasoning between the two. In the review of the president’s decision to "dis-appoint" Mxolisi Nxasana as national director of public prosecutions the court, rightly so, ruled out the president as the appointer of a suitably qualified successor, given President Jacob Zuma’s pending 18 charges and the conflict of interest this engenders. The deputy president was ordered to do the necessary within 60 days. This order involves the interpretation of sections 90 and 96 of the constitution. In the review of the public protector’s State of Capture report, Zuma’s attempt to impugn the remedial action that the chief justice appoint the judge to preside over a commission of inquiry into state capture was dismissed with punitive costs. Perplexingly, the remedial action was not revised to direct the deputy president to get the commission of inquiry establi...
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.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.