Batohi Faces Tough Questions at Inquiry Into Chauke’s Fitness to Hold Office

National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Advocate Shamila Batohi has come under intense scrutiny during her testimony at the inquiry into Johannesburg prosecutions boss Andrew Chauke’s fitness to hold office. What began as her formal complaint to President Cyril Ramaphosa—alleging politically motivated prosecutorial decisions by Chauke—has now placed Batohi herself in a difficult position as she struggles to substantiate several claims that triggered the high-profile proceedings.

The inquiry, established following Batohi’s complaint to the president, is examining whether Chauke’s conduct as a senior NPA leader warrants his suspension and potential removal from office. However, as the hearings unfold, it is Batohi who is facing increasing pressure to explain the foundations of her allegations.

One of the core accusations made by Batohi is that Chauke attempted to reinstate racketeering charges against former KwaZulu-Natal Hawks boss Johan Booysen without sufficient evidence. According to her complaint, such an action suggested politically influenced decision-making rather than adherence to prosecutorial integrity.

But when pressed on this allegation by Chauke’s legal representative, Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, Batohi struggled to provide clarity. She was asked to outline the basis for her claim—specifically, what Chauke had done to justify the assertion that he improperly pushed for reinstating the charges.

Documentary Evidence Missing as Batohi Takes the Stand

Her response, however, was uncertain.
“I can’t recall what his conduct was at that point regarding what happened,” Batohi admitted. “But for the appeal aspect, I’m not sure what advocate Chauke did.”

The admission raised eyebrows in the inquiry chamber, as it underscored what Chauke’s legal team argues is a lack of factual grounding behind the accusations.

Compounding the pressure, Batohi has been unable to produce documents that clearly outline Chauke’s role in the attempted reinstatement of Booysen’s racketeering charges. For a case involving such serious allegations—particularly ones that resulted in Chauke’s suspension—her inability to reference written evidence has become a point of criticism.

Ngcukaitobi pressed her further, digging into whether she had verified key details or consulted relevant records before submitting her complaint to the president. The lack of documentation, coupled with her limited recall, has opened debate about whether the inquiry was triggered on a fully substantiated basis.

In another surprising revelation, Batohi told the commission that she had not familiarised herself with the inquiry’s terms of reference before taking the stand. For the head of the NPA—an institution responsible for ensuring adherence to legal standards and procedural thoroughness—this admission caught the attention of both legal analysts and observers following the proceedings closely.

The terms of reference set the scope and boundaries of the inquiry, detailing what must be probed and how evidence is to be evaluated. Batohi’s acknowledgment that she had not acquainted herself with these critical guidelines fuelled criticism that her testimony lacked adequate preparation.

When questioned about her role as the primary complainant, Batohi distanced herself from that description. She insisted that the complaint was ultimately a presidential matter and that she was not the driving force behind the inquiry. This attempt to shift the complainant title to President Ramaphosa has been met with skepticism by Chauke’s defence team, who argue that the inquiry would not exist without Batohi’s initial submissions.

The stakes surrounding this inquiry extend far beyond Chauke’s personal fate. The clash between Batohi and Chauke highlights deeper tensions within the NPA, an institution that has grappled with internal divisions, political pressures, and questions about prosecutorial independence.

For Batohi, who has publicly emphasized the need to restore integrity and transparency within the NPA since her appointment, the hearing presents a test of her leadership and credibility. The inconsistencies in her testimony may raise concerns about whether internal disputes are overshadowing the institution’s core mandate.

Chauke, meanwhile, has argued that the allegations against him are politically motivated and intended to undermine his standing within the NPA. His defence team is using Batohi’s uncertain testimony to bolster claims that the inquiry is built on shaky foundations.

As the inquiry continues, observers are keenly watching how Batohi responds to mounting challenges and whether further evidence will be produced to support her claims. The proceedings are likely to influence public confidence in the NPA and shape perceptions of how internal conflicts are managed within one of the country’s most critical legal institutions.

For now, Batohi’s testimony has raised more questions than answers—leaving the inquiry to determine whether her allegations were grounded in fact or reflective of deeper institutional rifts still unresolved within the NPA.

Source- EWN