Rational citizens have reason to believe president has betrayed his oath of office

South Africa's Constitution requires the president of the Republic to swear that he or she will "obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution and all other laws of the Republic".

In our assessment of President Jacob Zuma's performance, which we are entitled to conduct from time to time regardless of what those who wear red socks and drink red wine might think, we need to take into account his own undertakings.

One undertaking is his oath of office or solemn affirmation. This is important because it is the first thing a president-elect does after being elected. A president-elect cannot govern until he or she has declared unquestionable fidelity to the supreme law of the land.

Significantly, the oath of office does not expect of the president to be passive in promoting the Constitution. Zuma is therefore obliged by his own undertaking to actively "obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution".

How has Zuma fared so far?

Firstly, there can be no way to assess this other than the president's decisions or conduct.

As president Zuma is entitled to take executive decisions in terms prescribed by the Constitution.

His powers are far-reaching. He can appoint and fire cabinet ministers when he wishes to. They are not protected by the Labour Relations Act. He appoints judges on recommendations by the Judicial Services Commission.

He signs bills into law.

He oversees the entire budget of the state, now totalling a trillion rands.

He is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

He appoints the heads of the army, intelligence and police. He also appoints the national director of public prosecutions.

He is also expected to conduct himself in a manner befitting a president who takes his oath of office seriously.

The only constraint - and it is an important one - is that all these powers must be exercised within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and other, which he has sworn to "obey, observe, uphold and maintain". In other words, the Constitution enables and constrains at the same time.

There is no free-for-all exercise of public powers.

Secondly, there are institutions that are empowered to make judgment calls as to whether the president's decisions or conduct are in line with his oath of office, the Constitution or the law.

Zuma's conduct or decisions on three crucial matters are of grave concern.

Two years ago he was described by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela in a manner that was completely unpresidential.

Madonsela said in a report following a probe that Zuma's failure to declare his private interests in terms of the law showed that he was "tardy".

The president was found guilty of violating the Executive Members' Ethics Act, which required that the president declare his interests within 60 days of taking office. Zuma missed the deadline by eight months.

The finding immediately cast aspersions on Zuma's credibility to hold the highest office in the land.

It was also embarrassing for ordinary citizens, the majority of whom elected him through Parliament.

Zuma is our legitimate president, elected to office through a constitutional democratic process. To be told that we are led by a "tardy" president is therefore offensive to our credibility as citizens who elected him.

Offended as we are, we cannot, erase Madonsela's findings. They are now part of the official record of history of governance under Zuma.

Last year Zuma's decision to extend the term of office of former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo was found to be unconstitutional.

He had relied on a law that was not in line with the Constitution he committed himself to "obey, observe, uphold and maintain".

He insisted on appointing Ngcobo in the face of public objection, which ultimately led to an unfortunate situation in which the Constitutional Court - of which Ngcobo was head at the time - had to make a finding on whether it was constitutionally permissible to have Ngcobo's term extended.

The court decided that extending a judge's term of office raised the spectre of "judicial favours" and exposed the highest court to "political interference".

So the judges of the court - bar Ngcobo, who had to recuse himself - was not in line with judicial independence that is enshrined in the Constitution.

Zuma's decision to appoint Advocate Menzi Simelane as head of the national prosecuting authority was confirmed as "irrational" by the Constitutional Court last week.

The Supreme Court of Appeal had arrived at the same conclusion.

The Constitutional Court observed that Zuma ignored the requirements for a person to be fit and proper as specified in the Constitution and other laws.

Having conducted himself dishonestly during the Ginwala Inquiry and having once tried to interfere with the independence of the NPA, Simelane's appointment to head the NPA - which is expected to perform its functions without fear or favour and determine prosecutions honestly - was found to be unconstitutional.

The remarks by the judges were damning.

"Indeed, the comments [made by Ginwala] represented brightly flashing red lights warning of impending danger to any person involved in the process of Mr Simelane's appointment to the position of National Director [of Public Prosecutions]," reads the judgment.

Why didn't Zuma see these "brightly flashing red lights", which the judges believed could be seen by "anyone" involved in making such a crucial decision?

Could it be because he is "tardy"?

Could it be because he likes to appoint people to office for reasons unrelated to those stipulated in law - meaning for irrational purposes?

Whichever way one looks at it, rational citizens have every reason to believe Zuma has betrayed his oath of office.

The question is: should we trust him when he takes the presidential oath once again in 2014?