Former president Jacob Zuma is unrelenting in his high-stakes legal battle to have the April 2022 appointment of Judge Raymond Zondo as the country's chief judge set aside.
Zuma first launched the challenge through the Jacob Zuma Foundation in May.
Through his legal team, Zuma argued that the appointment of Zondo by President Cyril Ramaphosa was irrational as he was not honest during the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) interviews and gave Ramaphosa an ultimatum.
He also argued that according to publicly available information, Zondo scored the lowest points when matched against Justice Mandisa Maya who was recommended for the position by the JSC.
He also said Zondo allegedly scored lower points than Justice Dunstan Mlambo and Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga who were also in the running.
Furthermore, Zuma argued that the appointment was irrational in that Ramaphosa defied the requirements of gender transformation as prescribed in Section 174(2) of the Constitution by overlooking Maya who had performed better than Zondo.
Late on Tuesday night, the Jacob Zuma Foundation announced that the matter was now in the second phase after Ramaphosa filed a notice to oppose the application on September 26.
This was while the JSC filed a notice that it would abide by any ruling the High Court in Pretoria would hand down over the matter.
The foundation shared both legal notices with the media via its media WhatsApp group.
It then said Ramaphosa now has to publicly open up on how he reached the decision to appoint Zondo.
“Accordingly, the next step in the process will be the compulsory provision by the JSC and Mr Ramaphosa of the record of the proceedings and deliberations pertaining to the JSC’s recommendations and the President’s decision,” it said in the statement.
It added that Ramaphosa will now be called upon to dispel the allegations that Zondo was being unduly rewarded for absolving him for his alleged role in the BOSASA/CR17 scandal and among other matters, in the final report of the State Capture Commission.
“He must also explain why he overlooked a woman candidate when she had, in any event, received the highest votes,” the foundation added.
“Such conduct is in breach of the equality clause (section 9 of the Constitution) and section 174(2) of the Constitution both of which prohibit gender discrimination.”