Shortly after taking office as national director of public prosecutions in June 2015, Shaun Abrahams boldly announced that "the days of disrespecting the NPA are over". He sought to assure a sceptical nation that he would restore the integrity and respect of the organisation that sits at the heart of the criminal justice system, and whose operational independence is constitutionally guaranteed.
However, his moniker of "Shaun the Sheep" and the memes that accompany it more accurately reflect perceptions of Abrahams's performance.
The reality is that under his tenure the NPA has been plunged further into controversy. In his state of the nation address last week, President Cyril Ramaphosa underscored the urgency of dealing with leadership issues at the NPA.There was widespread relief when the High Court in Pretoria ruled in December that Abrahams's appointment should be set aside, and that Ramaphosa (exercising powers as deputy president) should appoint a new NDPP. The court was of the view that because the NDPP was required to take a decision on reinstating fraud, corruption and racketeering charges against Jacob Zuma, the latter would be conflicted in appointing the new NDPP.
With the removal of Zuma as president that issue is now moot, and should the Constitutional Court confirm the orders of the high court, Ramaphosa, as president, will then appoint a new NDPP.
Initially Zuma, Abrahams and the NPA (as well as former NDPP Mxolisi Nxasana whose unlawful golden handshake prompted the litigation) sought to appeal the high court verdict. Indeed, Abrahams submitted his notice of appeal on the day the high court judgment was delivered. Not only did his anxiety get the better of him but he was not required to do so, as a dispassionate officer of the court would have known.
The Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac), together with Corruption Watch and Freedom Under Law, approached the Constitutional Court directly as it needs to confirm the high court findings on the constitutionality of Zuma's conduct in entering into an unlawful settlement deal with Nxasana.On Friday, Ramaphosa withdrew the president's appeal against the judgment that Abrahams should vacate his position, a move that would appear to seal Abrahams's fate.
This is the first case affecting Zuma to come before the courts since his resignation.
One of Zuma's reasons for wanting to hold onto office was to retain control over these legal processes that ultimately affect him directly and personally. As the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear this application on an urgent basis this Wednesday it is anticipated that judgment will follow speedily as well, perhaps by the end of next month.
Ramaphosa is unable to appoint a new NDPP until the court has ruled in the matter.
There are now three options that exist for the court to consider: that Nxasana be reinstated as NDPP; that Abrahams be retained as NDPP; or that a new NDPP be appointed.
The primary reason for setting aside Abrahams's appointment was that because Nxasana's removal was unlawful, there was no vacancy in the office of the NDPP to fill.
The high court declared that were Abrahams to remain NDPP, Zuma would achieve through unlawful means what he wanted all along - the removal of Nxasana and his replacement with a more pliant NDPP.
Abrahams argues that although the golden handshake to Nxasana was unlawful and he agrees that it should be paid back, the court should accept that Nxasana voluntarily left office. The court found that had it not been for the R17.3-million golden handshake Nxasana would not have agreed to leave - that was the decisive factor.
Indeed, Nxasana was willing to face an inquiry into his fitness to hold office until Zuma aborted it on the eve of its commencement and made an offer Nxasana couldn't resist.
The full bench of the high court went further to express its dismay with Abrahams's conduct as a senior officer of the court. The bench reflected on Abrahams's support for Zuma's legal strategy in the "spy tapes" saga, until, approaching the end of the road, both Zuma and the NPA acknowledged that the original decision to drop the criminal charges against Zuma was indeed irrational.Abrahams's behaviour in the spy tapes litigation prompted Casac to seek an assurance from him that he will not take a decision regarding the Zuma charges without giving us notice so that we can seek the appropriate relief. We have now invited Abrahams to provide the Constitutional Court with a similar undertaking.
It is in the interests of justice, the rule of law and the integrity of the NPA that such a decision be taken by a properly appointed NDPP, and not one tainted by the unlawful removal of Nxasana.
Even if Abrahams had not behaved in such a reprehensible manner, the court's primary concern is to do what is in the best interests of the NPA. In its heads of argument before the Constitutional Court Casac states: "This is not an employment dispute between an employee and a private employer. This is a constitutional dispute about an attempt to undermine one of our central crime-fighting institutions through what amounted to a bribe to Mr Nxasana to leave office."
The remedy that the court adopts should strengthen, not further weaken, the NPA.
The NPA's new-found appetite for pursuing high-profile political figures should not lull us into believing that Abrahams will now exercise his mandate independently - he is merely seeking to curry favour with the new political masters in a desperate bid to save his job.
It is, if anything, a further demonstration of his unsuitability for office - having gone AWOL when the state capture saga was unfolding before our eyes, Abrahams now wants to be seen as a valiant corruption-buster. It's too late.
• Naidoo is the executive secretary of Casac..