The bid seeking to appeal a judgment on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s appointment of advocate Andy Mothibi as the head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has been withdrawn before the high court in Pretoria. Lawyer Barnabas Xulu’s firm on Tuesday filed a notice of withdrawal of the application intended to appeal an earlier judgment that dismissed its request for a review of Mothibi’s appointment on procedural irregularity grounds. The firm wanted the new national director of public prosecutions’ (NDPP) appointment set aside because Mothibi was not interviewed by an advisory panel that interviewed candidates in a public process when he was appointed by Ramaphosa to take over from advocate Shamila Batohi earlier this year. The law firm wanted a full bench or the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to decide on the matter, but the application for leave to appeal has been withdrawn. “The applicant [Xulu firm] hereby withdraws its application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order delivered,” the withdrawal notice reads. As a result, Mothibi remains the head of the NPA.Lawyer Barnabas Xulu has withdrawn the application for leave to appeal NPA head Andy Mothibi's appointment. (Screengrab ) In his judgment in March, judge Etienne Labuschagne dismissed the application, saying the president acted in a rational manner by appointing Mothibi after the panel did not recommend any of the candidates interviewed. “Time was running out as the incumbent would vacate her position at the end of January. The fact that the president appointed a person whose fitness is not being questioned speaks of a rational decision,” Labuschagne said. The panel, led by justice minister Mmamoloko Kubayi, decided not to recommend any of the candidates interviewed and filed a report with the president on December 12. Those interviewed included: former NPA head Menzi Simelane;then Independent Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) head Andrea Johnson;former Idac head Hermione Cronje; and advocates Nicolette Bell, Adrian Mopp and Xolisile Khanyile. The firm had argued in the appeal papers that the high court erred in holding that the president’s decision to appoint Mothibi was rational and that procedural fairness was not a requirement. Xulu’s issue with Cronje stems from the time his firm worked for the departments of agriculture, forestry & fisheries, and environmental affairs“The president established a specific public process for the appointment of the NDPP, mandating the panel to conduct an open and transparent process including public participation, shortlisting, interviews and vetting and to submit the names of three suitable candidates. Having created this process, the president bound himself to follow it,” it said. Initially the firm’s litigation was to prevent Ramaphosa from appointing an NDPP, based on recommendations of the advisory panel who interviewed candidates. Xulu’s main gripe was that his firm submitted to the panel an objection to the candidature of Cronje, and argued the process was flawed and irregular because Cronje was not given the objection on time to respond in detail to the panel. The firm maintained the process was flawed, despite the president not appointing any of the candidates interviewed by the panel. Xulu’s issue with Cronje stems from the time his firm worked for the departments of agriculture, forestry & fisheries, and environmental affairs. The firm had a case that involved the NPA’s asset forfeiture unit in the Western Cape headed by Cronje at the time, and there was a dispute in the case between the NPA and the firm. Business Day