OP is simply mistaken in his understanding of how identify can be validly used. There's nothing wrong with the cited example, which reflects OED's definition #6...
v. trans. To discover, distinguish, isolate; to locate and recognize, or describe.
The semantics of OP's context strongly imply that a suitable candidate does exist already, but his identity is currently unknown (consultations are simply intended to help discover who he is).
But arguably it could be said to mean the primary purpose of the consultations is to establish the identifying characteristics of "a suitable candidate", following which there might be another round of consultations to decide who best fits the "definition of requirements" thereby identified.
That second possible meaning (identify = establish the defining characteristics of something) might not precisely correspond to any dictionary definition, but to my mind it's the sense intended when people say scientists have identified the Higgs Boson or identified a new species.
Probably a pedant would say my second meaning isn't strictly valid (because no single individual is necessarily and explicitly isolated by the activity), but I've no doubt a skilled politician/orator could easily defend it. If we suppose, for example, that the consultations were part of a strictly-defined parliamentary process that Napolitano was legally obliged to follow, he could argue that their remit was to identify [the defining characteristics of] a suitable candidate, following which he himself could make the actual decision as to which individual best matched that definition.