By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria dismissed applications brought by two senior advocates, who were challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to reverse their appointments at the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
Judge DS Fourie said Ramaphosa’s decision was “lawful, rational and consistent with the Constitution”.
Advocates Ron Simphiwe Mncwabe and Khulekani Raymond Mathenjwa were purportedly promoted days before former president Jacob Zuma’s tenure ended.
They were informed by the former national director of public prosecutions, Shaun Abrahams, about their new jobs.
And although Zuma’s decision to appoint the officials was recorded in official presidential minutes, it was never formally communicated to the public.
Zuma had taken steps to appoint five senior members in various offices of the NPA.
When Ramaphosa assumed office, he decided to withdraw these appointments.
Three of the appointees launched separate applications to challenge Ramaphosa’s decision.
Mncwabe was appointed as the director of public prosecutions in the Northern Cape Division of the High Court, while Mathenjwa was appointed as director of public prosecutions in the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court.
They wanted the president’s decision reviewed and set aside.
Advocate Jacobus Pretorius, however, withdrew his application in March 2020.
The court had to consider whether Ramaphosa was entitled to reverse Zuma’s initial decision.
“It was contended on behalf of the applicants that President Ramaphosa was functus officio (he was not entitled to reconsider the decision which had already been made) and could therefore not set aside the decision of former president Zuma,” reads the judgment.
“It was further submitted that Presidential Minutes no 10 and 18 in terms thereof the applicants were appointed by former president Zuma are both final and valid documents…”
In his ruling, Fourie said the appointment of a director of public prosecutions by the president should not be made in secret, behind closed doors or unobtrusive.
The judge added: “This is not a private affair. It is not a daily occurrence. This is a necessary and important public appointment provided by statute. The right of the public to be informed is implicit in the constitutional ordering, so that the public may know who to hold accountable.
Fourie said it appeared that Ramaphosa properly applied his mind to these proposed appointments.