Following weeks of intense public scrutiny of Zuma's nominee for the country's top judicial post, as well as an unprecedented two-day interview of the candidate by the Judicial Service Commission, the president this week named his candidate South Africa's new chief justice, despite objections from a number of legal bodies; political parties and civil society.
Although there were a number of other organisations and individuals who supported the nomination, several crucial issues concerning Justice Mogoeng's suitability for the job had still not been properly dealt with by the end of last weekend's interview.
The constitution grants the head of state the power to appoint the chief justice. Section 174 (3) of the constitution requires that the president do so after consulting the JSC and leaders of political parties represented in the National Assembly.
Zuma would argue that he fulfilled the requirement to consult stakeholders before appointing Mogoeng.
But was the consultation process meaningful? We think not. The president's refusal to meet DA leader Helen Zille, who wanted to discuss her party's concerns about Justice Mogoeng, was ill-advised and left many believing that Zuma had long since made up his mind and didn't want to listen to any other views during the consultation process.
If the integrity of the judiciary is to be maintained, the presidency should, in future, appoint chief justices with the seriousness and honesty demanded by the constitution.
Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package. 
