I have acted as a judge. If I was fit to act as a judge, I am fit to hold the post (of national director of public prosecutions).” So says Muzi Wilfred Mkhize SC, who, according to well-informed sources, had all but put his name on the door of Vusi Pikoli’s office.

Then, after two examples of alarming unprofessional and unethical behaviour by him (one of them possibly even corrupt) surfaced, he fell back on his lofty status as former acting judge to justify a continued determination to take the top prosecuting job.

If I’m good enough to preside in court, he said in effect, I’m good enough to head the prosecution service. But he isn’t good enough to preside in court. Far from it.

I’m basing this conclusion on a judgment by Mkhize at the end of a case he heard and decided on January 15 this year: S v Mbatha and six others.

The 19-page document is unintelligible throughout. No judge producing work of this quality could be said to be “fit” for a job on the bench. He summarises the first count faced by the accused, namely conspiracy to commit housebreaking and theft.

It was claimed by the state, says the judgment, that the accused were guilty in that steal from sometime prior to 10 August 2007, the exact date Unknown and at or near Mthatha the accused unlawfully and intentionally conspired with one another to aid procure the commission of or to commit the offence of housebreaking with the intent to and theft .

Mkhize records the evidence of one witness: The wall in the bakery section had been pushing outside, there was a whole of about 40cm square.

And, my favourite: He received from the organised crime the amount of R201 000 on the 10th August 2007. The Manager had been put in the safe on the 9th August 2007 was Xolelwa Peter. He does not know how much was the damage as everything was done by Head Office.

At some stage of his judgment, Mkhize apparently began to reproduce oral evidence or a written statement by someone who might be a witness, but even from the context one can’t be sure.

In summarising the evidence, Mkhize seems to forget to put some of it into indirect speech and the result is absolute confusion, that he ends up implicating himself in the events.

The vehicle stopped and the driver came out and rushed to the police vehicle. It was accused no 1 who was the Inspector in the SAPS. He produced his appointment certificate. We told him we wanted to search their vehicle. He gave us permission to do so.

Here’s a paragraph dealing with an accused who made a confession and subsequently retracted it, claiming he had been assaulted. He says when he said he knew nothing about the case he was hit with in his head with an open hand and put a plastic bag cover his head and they cover his face and he fell down. Maqhubela took out a plastic bag from him.

Finally, two fragments I couldn’t resist.

Rejecting a claim by the accused, Mkhize said their version “bothers on stupidity”.

Elsewhere, having dismissed their “stupid” version of events, he notes that the six accused were “appealing witnesses”.

It’s not just that the judgment is incomprehensible ­ there’s also precious little legal reasoning evident in the 19 pages.

Who would compile a judgment of this quality? Not someone fit to be a judge: it shows neither respect nor aptitude for the position.

As for Mkhize’s aspirations, imagine the chaos if a director of prosecutions produced documents as incomprehensible as this in an important criminal matter. The idea of Mkhize being able so much as to discern corruption, let alone prosecute it, is far-fetched in the extreme.

On the other hand, if Cape Town Judge President John Hlophe can set his determined sights on becoming Chief Justice, why should being unfit for the job deter Mkhize?

With acknowledgements to Carmel Rickard and Business Day.