Whatever his guilt or innocence, an accused should be assured that the trial to which he is to be subjected is as fair and even-handed a process as is possible.

Nevertheless, to apply for the recusal of a judge, calling into question as it does the integrity of the Bench, is a step not to be lightly undertaken.

Former Deputy-President Jacob Zuma has obtained the recusal from his rape trial of one judge and scuppered the appointment of another. A third withdrew for mysterious "personal reasons".

In two court days, his team disposed of the Transvaal division's three most senior judges: Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, Deputy Judge President Jeremiah Shongwe and Deputy Judge President Phineas Mojapelo.

Presumably Zuma and his legal team retired from the fray - the trial has been postponed to next month - flushed at drawing first blood. They should instead reflect that with their antics and manoeuvrings they are damaging the roots of what until now has been a reassuringly robust legal system.

These events are unprecedented in South African legal history. Ngoepe took the extraordinary step of recusing himself not because he considered himself to be prejudiced against Zuma - that is, not on legal grounds - but because he wanted to "protect the credibility of the trial and its outcome".

It is not unheard of for judges to be asked to consider their recusal. It happens fairly frequently in politically charged trials. Normally, a judge would not recuse herself or himself merely because they had previously heard a matter involving the accused; it is assumed that an honourable judge is able to set aside such influences.

By stating that he is not prejudiced but will nevertheless withdraw on political grounds, Ngoepe has done the law a disservice. Law is not the stuff of airy-fairy impressions; by its nature it has to deal with controversy and passions, and scythe through the hot air to the heart of the matter.

It is not possible in a country as racially, ethnically and religiously varied as ours to avoid mutterings about prejudice. Many black accused before a white judge, or white before a black presiding officer, will harbour such concerns.

This does not mean such fears and prejudices should be indulged. On the contrary, such mutterings are irrelevant, for the appeals process provides a corrective mechanism to redress judicial stupidity or malice.

It may be perfectly logical for Zuma to want a black, male, Zulu judge who is sympathetic to the excessively macho culture that Zuma appears to espouse. It is also perfectly logical that his accuser in this rape case might prefer a gay woman judge who is HIV positive, as the complainant is, and who will have an empathy with her.

Such prejudices and preferences are irrelevant and by pandering to such, Ngoepe has inadvertently hurt the credibility of the Bench and its ability to do its job unfettered by public opinion. It is a regrettable failure of courage by the men heading the Transvaal division.

One doubts that Zuma gives a toss about all this. His behaviour since his rape charge has showed a galling insensitivity and arrogance, whatever his guilt or innocence on the charge.

How can it possibly be acceptable for the would-be president to tolerate from his supporters outside the court the abuse and even physical violence that has been directed against the counter-demonstrating contingent from People Opposed to Women Abuse?

Complicit in this shameful behaviour are leading lights of the SA Communist Party and the Congress of SA Trade Unions.

It would take only a word from Zuma to quell his assembled rabble. Instead he leads them in a rousing chorus of his favourite song, Lethu Mshini Wami (Bring Me My Gun).

In a letter to Business Day, female activist Nozizwe Afrika complained of the phallic symbolism and aggressive male chauvinism this conveyed. She is of course right, but what should worry us even more is the undertone of threat to an already jittery judiciary.

With acknowledgement to the Saturday Weekend Argus and William Saunderson-Meyer