'Respect Zuma's choice of chief justice' - Zizi Kodwa

THE recent furore that erupted when the president announced his preferred nomination for the vacant post of chief justice of South Africa, has unmasked the grotesque element that often masquerades as analysis and commentary.

Nonetheless, we must welcome the debate as an indication that nothing is absolute and such debates enhance the very principles and vision on which our constitutional democracy is founded.

I must hasten to caution, though, that our conduct in the debate must never amount to an erosion of the prestige and integrity of our Constitution, regardless of our immediate feelings, preferences and misgivings.

The Constitution of the Republic, Act 108 of 1996, gives powers to the president to be the executive head of state and government.

The Constitution further prescribes to and enjoins the president to appoint the chief justice of the Concourt and South Africa.

The president, in exercising the powers conferred on him by the constitution, will always uphold all relevant provisions of the law, which are meant to safeguard the constitution.

In the analysis and commentary that followed the president's announcement, there has been an alarming paucity of facts, perhaps prudently to drive a different view.

I still wonder whether the issue is with the name nominated or the process? I would imagine that South Africans across the spectrum will be concerned about that which seems to undermine the trust and spirit of the constitution. Is this what the criticism has been about?

I have my doubts.

There is a repository of evidence that, in fact, the criticism is not about the process, but those who criticise seem themselves to harbour their own preferred name for the same post.

In his article published on Wednesday, the editor of Sowetan puts it more blatantly, that the honourable president in his choice of nomination has actually overlooked someone who is the best candidate for the job.

In society in general, there are decisions that we don't support, but would come to live in peace with, not because we cannot do anything about them, but out of respect for those who have the right to take such decisions, without questioning their integrity and intentions.

I might have preferences in the appointment of an editor of Sowetan, but I respect the right of Avusa and the management to take decisions appropriate to the publication, informed by whatever considerations.

What bothers me extremely in the current debate, is the suggestion that when it comes to the president exercising his prerogative, acting within the constitution and the law, he must either have a referendum or some kind of mini public opinion survey before he takes a decision that rightfully the Constitution empowers him to do.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa must guide us in all our endeavours and we must uphold it at all material times, including accepting to be led by people we don't necessarily like or approve of.

As democrats both in private and public space, we must never craft policies in order to accommodate individuals. This is a grave mistake which has brought misery and hopelessness in many other countries.

Where we see a deviation from the Constitution, we must without hesitation or proximity to power, raise it with no altruistic, ulterior or opportunist motives.

I am confident that the president, whatever decision he takes at the end, would have taken it in the interests of the country and its people.

• The writer is adviser on communication to President Jacob Zuma