The legal bid to halt President Cyril Ramaphosa’s appointment of a new National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) is rooted in frustration over procedural fairness, not a personal vendetta, according to the applicants.
B Xulu and Partners Incorporated (BXI) insists its challenge against the process involving job candidate Hermione Cronje and the panel advising Ramaphosa was a necessary intervention to protect constitutional integrity.
Rectifying perceived flaws
The law firm founded by lawyer Barnabas Xulu had sought a temporary pause on the process. It argued that its core objective is to rectify perceived flaws that could undermine the NPA’s legitimacy, not to target individuals.
The firm’s founding affidavit, filed in the Pretoria High Court, leaned on constitutional principles of transparency, fairness, and equal treatment in appointments to critical state institutions.
It argued that public confidence in the prosecuting authority is paramount, and that any credible defect in the selection process must be judicially reviewed and corrected before an appointment is made.
In a public statement on Wednesday, Xulu stressed the impersonal nature of the legal challenge.
Procedural defects in the process
“The application was not intended to cause any public debate about contested allegations but seeks the intervention of the court to ensure that the constitutional appointment process is protected from procedural defects that could undermine public confidence in the independence and integrity of the National Prosecuting Authority,” he stated.
The application had centred on the handling of BXI’s 99-page objection to the candidacy of Cronje. While the Advisory Panel acknowledged the objection, it was not put to Cronje during her televised interview, a courtesy BXI argues created an unfair advantage.
“The courtesy afforded to Advocate Cronje to answer objections outside of the realm of the transparent public process has diminished the fairness and credibility of the recommendation process,” BXI contended.
Process would affect appointee’s credibility
The firm explicitly linked a fair process to the eventual appointee’s credibility. Whether it be Jan Mothibi — the candidate Ramaphosa has since appointed outside the panel’s process —or another.
“South Africa’s constitutional design requires that the NDPP enjoy unquestioned independence and public trust. Where credible process defects and unresolved integrity concerns are placed on the record, the responsible course is not to rush to finality but to correct the process. To disclose the record, and ensure that the selection is beyond reproach.”
Xulu added: “BXI seeks urgent interim relief because, once an appointment is made, any meaningful remedies may become academic or practically ineffective. And a temporary pause is necessary to avoid a fait accompli.
“Our democracy is strengthened when matters of genuine public concern can be raised openly and resolved through lawful institutions, without fear, favour or prejudice.”
Partial withdrawal of case
On Wednesday in a letter to the State Attorney, the firm agreed to withdraw the urgent part of its court bid to block Ramaphosa’s appointment of a new NDPP.
However, the firm has defiantly vowed to continue its pursuit of the full record behind the controversial selection process. It set a Friday deadline for Ramaphosa to avoid further litigation by disclosing all Advisory Panel documents.
The State Attorney, representing Ramaphosa and the Advisory Panel on the NDPP appointment, has received formal notice that the urgent court application seeking to interdict the process has been partially withdrawn. However, the central dispute over transparency remains firmly alive.
In a letter dated Wednesday, January 7, B Xulu and Partners Incorporated (BXI) informed the State Attorney’s office that the firm would withdraw Part A of its application — which sought an urgent interdict — and remove the matter from the court roll for January 20, 2026.
This follows the state’s argument, articulated by State Attorney Carol Mabena, that the appointment of Mothibi — a candidate not interviewed by the Advisory Panel — had rendered the interdict application moot.
Shortlisted candidates not suitable
The panel, which interviewed candidates including former investigative head Hermione Cronje, had reportedly found none of the shortlisted candidates suitable.
Despite conceding on the urgent interdict, Xulu’s firm mounted a significant counter-pressure play. The letter states clearly that the firm “still intend [s] pursuing the record of proceedings (including the recommendations to the President) in terms of the Rule 53 process together with the relief that was sought under Part B. That element is for us not moot.”
A tight deadline has been set, demanding the state’s position by 16:30 on Friday, January 9.
The state had previously warned that if BXI did not withdraw the application, it would file opposing affidavits by January 12 and seek a costs order against the firm for expenses incurred after its mootness declaration.
