National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Advocate Shamila Batohi, is continuing with her testimony before the Nkabinde Inquiry on Thursday.
The Inquiry is probing the fitness of Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Advocate Andrew Chauke to hold office, with testimony led by Evidence Leader Advocate David Mahlomanyane sc.
In a statement, Nkabinde Inquiry spokesperson Tiyisela Mpuzana said the inquiry remains satisfied with the steady continuation of proceedings and the manner in which evidence is being placed before the panel.
Testifying before the Inquiry on Wednesday, Batohi confirmed that DPP Advocate Andrew Chauke played a significant role in prosecutorial decisions, including the withdrawal of the appeal in the Booysen case.
Advocate Batohi endorsed the testimony provided by Dr Broughton, emphasising the implications of Chauke’s involvement in prosecutorial matters.
Batohi, who was questioned by Advocate David Mohlamonyane SC, confirmed that the decision to withdraw the appeal was ultimately made by the NDPP, Advocate Mxolisi Nxasana, after a series of meetings, including one on March 25, 2014.
This meeting was crucial, as it revealed concerns over whether the NDPP had been properly briefed on the appeal’s status.
Batohi, in her statement, noted that Advocate Chauke, who had coordinated the prosecution’s efforts, had acted beyond mere coordination and had, in fact, been involved in key decision-making processes.
“Advocate Chauke was more than simply putting together and coordinating a team. He acted as part of the prosecutorial decision-making,” Batohi said, citing Dr Broughton’s opinion, which she agreed with and endorsed.
The inquiry focused on the question of whether Advocate Chauke overstepped his bounds in directing prosecutorial actions, particularly in the Booysen case.
According to Batohi, there was a clear division of responsibilities, with Advocate Chauke playing a leadership role, including the critical decision to approach the NDPP for consent to appeal. However, it was the NDPP who eventually made the final call, she said.
Further, Batohi pointed to the testimony of Advocate Anthony Mosing, who outlined a sequence of communications involving Chauke.
Batohi confirmed that, on March 26, 2014, Chauke sent an email to the State Attorney confirming that the NDPP had decided to withdraw the appeal. This email was a follow-up to earlier communications regarding the appeal and higlighted Chauke’s role in the process.
“On 26 March 2014, it was Advocate Chauke who wrote an email to the State Attorney conveying the decision of the NDPP to withdraw the appeal in the Booysen Review matter,” Batohi said.
She added that this decision confirmed Chauke’s influential role in the process.
The inquiry also explored how the withdrawal decision unfolded. Batohi explained that the process was marked by a series of exchanges between key figures, including Advocate Chauke, Advocate Mosing, and Dr Silas Ramaite.
It was at a critical meeting on March 25, 2014, that the NDPP raised concerns about not being properly briefed on the appeal process, leading to a heated discussion about the handling of the case, she said.
According to Batohi, the NDPP expressed frustration at not receiving a clear memorandum on the matter. “Mr Nxasana stressed that he did not receive any memorandum on the Booysen matter and was not briefed,” Batohi said.
She confirmed that this concern led to the decision to withdraw the appeal.
Batohi also reflected on the aftermath of the March 25 meeting, where it was agreed that a detailed briefing would be prepared for the NDPP on the Booysen case before April 7, 2014. This briefing would clarify the prosecution team’s stance and rationale behind the decision to withdraw the appeal.
In summarising her position, Batohi affirmed the importance of clear decision-making protocols within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), and reiterated that while Advocate Chauke had played a prominent role in the case, the ultimate decision rested with the NDPP.
Politics
