Parliament presses Batohi to name rogue NPA prosecutor
South African Justice System Inquiry Stalls as NDPP Advocate Shamila Batohi Withholds Names
Image: X
The Ad Hoc Committee of Parliament investigating allegations of infiltration within South Africa’s criminal justice system expressed growing frustration with National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Advocate Shamila Batohi during a tense session on Tuesday.
Batohi’s refusal to divulge the name of a prosecutor alleged to be involved in organised criminality has left committee members threatening to suspend their work altogether.
The inquiry, which is probing the reported “capture” of the justice system by criminal syndicates, has gained momentum following the suspension of South Gauteng Director of Public Prosecutions, Advocate Andrew Chauke.
The issue was front and center amid allegations that officials within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) have been compromised.
At the Committee, Batohi was pressed to identify the prosecutor implicated in intelligence reports of misconduct.
In response, Batohi said, “I received information from the National Commissioner that a member of the prosecuting authority was involved in organised criminality.”
“However, I cannot disclose this name here as the matter is under investigation. I have formally referred it to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks) and requested more evidence. It would be irresponsible and unfair to name someone based on intelligence that may be incomplete or inaccurate.”
She further explained the NPA policy on confidentiality, standing firm in her stance.
“We do not disclose the names of persons under investigation until they have appeared in court. This is to protect constitutional rights and ensure fairness. I understand the committee’s desire for transparency, but exposing names prematurely can jeopardise individuals and investigations alike.”
The reluctance to reveal names sparked sharp rebukes from committee members.
ActionSA MP Dereleen James voiced severe frustration about Batohi’s approach.
“You say you don’t trust crime intelligence, yet we are asked as South Africans and committee members to trust that same source. The purpose of this ad hoc committee risks becoming mere window dressing.
“We need names. Other individuals implicated in this matter have been named ‘allegedly’. Why is the NPA now applying different standards?”
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema was even more direct:
“What is the problem with naming the prosecutor if such allegations exist? If names are mentioned incorrectly, there are legal remedies in South Africa for individuals to clear their names.
“We have had names of drug lords, corrupt police officials, and judges mentioned already. If some have captured the NPA, then South Africa must know who they are and hold them accountable.”
Malema warned that shielding individuals under the veil of intelligence reports undermines the entire process.
“Protecting individuals over the constitution does a disservice to the people. The NDPP must come clean. If she refuses, her presence here is pointless.”
African National Congress (ANC) MP Xola Nqola also pressed Batohi to provide names:
“Names must be given to the Committee to facilitate concrete findings and recommendations. These are not guilty verdicts but part of the investigative process. We need transparency on the evidence we are presented with.”
EFF MP Leigh-Ann Mathys added that if confidentiality was a concern, a closed session should be convened instead.
“Refusing to disclose key information in open session is a waste of time and stifles the Committee’s work.”
In her lengthy response, Batohi asked the Committee to understand the constraints of her position, stressing the importance of fairness and constitutional protections.
“I never said I don’t trust crime intelligence. I said we operate in an environment where you don’t always know who to trust. But most importantly, we have to uphold the presumption of innocence and the rights of all accused persons.
“Naming someone based on intelligence alone, without proper evidence, could destroy lives and impede investigations. I have a duty to act fairly and responsibly.”
She acknowledged the concerns raised and suggested another platform to disclose the names.
“Perhaps a closed session would be appropriate to share sensitive information, but on an open platform, I cannot recklessly expose identities without proper evidence and due process.”
Committee Chair Lesetja Lekganyane pressed Batohi further to reveal names.
“As the NDPP, accountability is paramount. If a person has been suspended, the public has a right to know why. Failure to fully answer questions could be seen as obstruction.”
Batohi held firm but reiterated that further disclosure would risk unfair prejudice:
“Revealing more at this stage may indirectly identify the individual. The constitution requires fairness, and I must respect the investigative process and the rights of the person concerned.”
MK party MP Sibonelo Nombalo was explicit about their dissatisfaction with Batohi’s perceived lack of cooperation.
“You are the NDPP, entrusted to oversee the NPA. Refusing to name persons implicated undermines this investigation. Cooperation is not a choice; it is an obligation.”
Malema stated that a rotten NPA is dangerous for the public.
“We ask for names, and the NDPP evades. We’ve named drug lords, corrupt cops, and judges; why should the prosecutor be shielded? We cannot effectively root out capture without transparency.”
The committee’s ongoing inquiry remains a critical effort to restore public confidence in South Africa’s justice system, addressing allegations that threaten the integrity of law enforcement.
thabo.makwakwa@inl.co.za
IOL Politics