The Pretoria High Court is expected to rule on Tuesday whether President Jacob Zuma may appoint a new National Director of Public Prosecutions, despite a pending legal challenge by the axed NDPP.
Former NDPP Vusi Pikoli wants the court to issue an interim order stopping Zuma from making a new appointment.
Pikoli wants the order to stay in place until judgement had been handed down in his legal bid to have his dismissal ruled unlawful and invalid.
That application has been set down to be heard between November 23 and 25.
If the court rules in favour of Pikoli on Tuesday, it would mean acting NDPP Mokotedi Mpshe would remain in that position until after the November hearing. If the court rules against Pikoli, Zuma will be allowed to appoint a new NDPP without having to wait for the outcome of Pikoli’s challenge against his dismissal.
Former president Thabo Mbeki suspended Pikoli in September 2007 and Mbeki’s successor, Kgalema Motlanthe, removed him from office in December last year, purportedly for not showing adequate regard for national security matters.
In February, Parliament endorsed Motlanthe’s decision, which he said was based on the findings of an inquiry into his fitness to hold office which was led by Frene Ginwala.
But Pikoli has rejected this reason, saying she did not make such a finding and that Motlanthe distorted and manipulated the report.
Pikoli maintains that the root cause of his sacking was that he wanted to arrest former police national commissioner Jackie Selebi, against Mbeki’s wishes.
The president’s senior counsel, RG Buchanan, last week told the court it was ”more desirable” to appoint someone now than ”this half-hearted limping along for another year”.
Zuma was adamant that he was obliged to ensure the effective functioning of all state departments and that it was desirable that the functions of the NDPP should be performed by a permanent appointee.
Counsel for Pikoli, Tim Bruinders SC, argued last week that his client had prima facie prospects of success in the main application.
He said Pikoli had shown that there would be real prejudice not only for him, but also for the guarantee of prosecutorial independence, if his successor was appointed while the court was still deciding if his removal had been invalid.
He stressed that Pikoli had done nothing disreputable, dishonourable or dishonest and that the reasons advanced by the president for his dismissal did not render him unfit for office.
”The president says orderly governance is of importance to him, but there is no evidence that the continuance of an acting NDPP has or will cause problems,” Bruinders said. – Sapa