The Democratic Alliance's (DA's) application to remove National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Menzi Simelane, was dismissed by the High Court in Pretoria on Wednesday.

"In the absence of any prescribed process, I am unable to hold that the process followed was irrational as the President's [Jacob Zuma] aim was, as is apparent from his answering affidavit, to determine whether Mr Simelane was a fit and proper person for appointment as envisaged in the Constitution and the [National Prosecuting Authority] act," read Judge Pieter van der Byl's ruling.

"I am accordingly unpersuaded that it has been shown on the probabilities that Mr Simelane is not a fit and proper person for appointment."

The DA filed urgent papers last year opposing Zuma's appointment of Simelane. The party said that he was not the right person for the job and the process followed to appoint him was irrational.

It also argued that the appointment was made for an improper, ulterior motive, namely to appoint an NDPP who was thought to be malleable to the executive's wishes.

DA chairperson James Selfe said that the party would meet its legal team on Wednesday afternoon to examine the judgment and internally decide on whether it would appeal the ruling. It would decide on whether to take the matter to the Constitutional Court.

The judgment said that the DA's allegations against Simelane constituted a "formidable onslaught" of his fitness to hold office and of the President's decision to appoint him.

Van der Byl described his task as "extremely difficult" as there was no prescribed process that the President was required to follow to appoint the NDPP, which the judge found strange.

"One cannot help to wonder, regard being had particularly to the fact that the position of NDPP is an important functionary in the administration of justice, why the legislature has in its wisdom elected not to have prescribed an open and transparent process to be followed, like... in the case of judges."

He said that there was also no indication that Zuma had considered any other candidate. But this did not mean the decision taken was not in good faith or was not rational.

The basis of the party's argument against Simelane was that he gave "misleading and untruthful" evidence before the Ginwala inquiry established to ascertain the fitness to hold office of his predecessor Vusi Pikoli.

Ginwala's report was critical of Simelane, finding that his conduct as the then-justice department director general was "irregular" and that his testimony was "contradictory and without basis in fact or in law".

The report also referred to a letter drafted by Simelane to Pikoli instructing him to stop investigating former police commissioner Jackie Selebi.

Ginwala said assuming this was correct, the contents of the letter were "tantamount to executive interference with the prosecutorial independence of the National Prosecuting Authority" and that Simelane's conduct was "reckless to say the least".

Van der Byl's judgment read: "I am not persuaded that... he is not a controversial person and one with an unblemished background or that he is one of the most experienced persons who could have been taken into consideration for appointment.

"That is, however, not the test."

Regarding costs said the court was not dealing with an individual asserting his or her rights, rather with a political party raising a "constitutional issue". He said he did not believe that the DA launched the proceedings for "frivolous or vexatious" reasons.

"I have no doubt that... the DA acted fairly and reasonably to have been concerned, as a number of other prominent persons in our community, on the person of Mr Simelane and the manner in which the appointment was affected."

He therefore did not make a costs order to be paid by any party.