The unexpected truth behind Shamila Batohi's decision to withdraw charges against Booysen

National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Advocate Shamila Batohi admitted at the Nkabinde Inquiry that she did not personally read the case docket implicating former KZN Hawks head Maj-Gen Johan Booysen and members of the Cato Manor Unit.

She withdrew the racketeering charges, citing insufficient evidence to support the prosecution, and confirmed the murder charge against Booysen was also dropped for the same reason.

The inquiry, which is probing the fitness of Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Advocate Andrew Chauke to hold office, is examining two controversial cases: the racketeering prosecution of Booysen and members of the Cato Manor Organised Crime Unit, and the discontinuation of murder charges against former police crime intelligence head Lt General Richard Mdluli.

During her testimony on Monday, Batohi confirmed that at the time she decided to institute a disciplinary case against Advocate Chauke, she relied on a memorandum prepared by Advocate Rodney de Kock and did not personally examine the 23 related case dockets.

“I didn’t study the dockets,” Batohi told the panel. “My answer now also relies on the evidence of a report of the DPP KZN.”

Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, representing Chauke, pressed Batohi on her position.

“You say to the panel there was no case against Major General Booysen without ever having read the docket. Can I suggest that that is an astonishing proposition coming from the head of our prosecution service? I am going to tell the panel that, at the end, your evidence must be rejected as incredible because it is irresponsible to make such a claim without having read the docket.”

Batohi defended her approach, saying it was not irresponsible for a national director to rely on reports and presentations from a prosecutorial team rather than reading every piece of evidence herself.

“There is case law that national directors are not expected to read every single bit of evidence and every docket in cases,” she told the inquiry.

“It is perfectly acceptable for a national director to rely on reports, to rely on presentations, to request aspects of evidence, and to take decisions on that basis. It is what is expected of a responsible national director.”

Ngcukaitobi challenged Batohi further, pointing out that the docket against Booysen was small, consisting of just seven charges, rather than the extensive volumes she had referenced.

Batohi replied that her point about dockets filling a room was only to illustrate that national directors are not expected to read every single piece of evidence.

She maintained that while there were 23 related dockets, she was not aware of a specific racketeering docket against Booysen.

The inquiry also addressed allegations that Chauke had sought to improperly have the Acting DPP of KwaZulu-Natal sign case dockets.

Batohi clarified that this was incorrect. “It’s not our case that Advocate Chauke needed or asked the DPP to sign any case dockets. So this is clearly incorrect,” she said.

She acknowledged that the portion of the charge stating that Chauke supported a decision to prosecute without evidence was accurate, but disputed claims regarding improper attempts to have dockets signed.

Batohi repeatedly emphasised that her reliance on reports rather than direct review of dockets was consistent with her duties as NDPP.

“It is permissible for a national director to consider evidence presented by a team, presentations, and to ask for specific aspects of evidence if required,” she said. “But it is certainly not expected that a national director should read every single docket in any context.”

Ngcukaitobi countered, saying that her conclusion that there was no case against Booysen without having read the docket was “a grossly irresponsible thing.”

hope.ntanzi@iol.co.za 

IOL Politics 

Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.