If this was the Eighties, the democrats among us might be starting up "Save Vusi now" campaigns to ensure that National Director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli is not fired. Papers filed in court to stave off his axing reveal that losing his job would take a personal toll: like most employed black South Africans, Pikoli depends on his salary to survive.

We may even have started selling "Pickles for Pikoli" to help him fight a battle that marks a turning point in our constitutional democracy. But, sadly, like the investigation of the arms deal, like the firing of so many other whistleblowers *1, we have become a nation that sweeps our problems under the carpet.

If the Constitution is to have any real meaning as a check on executive and legislative abuse, the courts should draw a line in the sand now. Our Constitution embodies the doctrine of the separation of powers -- that the legislative, executive and judicial arms of government should not encroach unduly on one another's territory.

But the figure of the national director of public prosecutions sits at the intersection of these three arms -- and it is for this reason that his independence is critical and is constitutionally protected.

The treatment of Pikoli, by former president Thabo Mbeki, by President Kgalema Motlanthe and by the ruling party in Parliament fundamentally undermines that independence by demonstrating a blunt exercise of power that has swept away rationality and legality.

In a highly dangerous precedent the legislature and the executive have made the conduct of what is one of the most powerful public service posts in the country subservient to political diktat.

As one commentator put it this week: "This battle for integrity, honesty and transparency against the machinations of a corrupt and self-serving party is pivotal for the wellbeing of South Africa."

As Pikoli himself puts it in his application: "This application is necessary … because my removal from office violated the principle of prosecutorial independence, the rule of law and the Constitution. If I do not make a stand, these values would be severely damaged."

Up to now the courts have been reluctant to encroach too far on the parliamentary process or executive discretion. In the Hugh Glenister case there was an attempt to stop Parliament from enacting legislation to disband the Scorpions. In that instance the Constitutional Court declined to intervene, mainly because the legislative process had not run its course.

But Chief Justice Pius Langa set out the parameters of when the courts might indeed intervene: when the harm resulting from unlawful conduct would be material and irreversible.

Allowing the dismissal of Vusi Pikoli to stand would involve precisely such harm.

With acknowledgements to Mail and Guardian.