Batohi Highlights NPA Structure as Inquiry into Andrew Chauke Intensifies
Batohi- The inquiry into embattled Johannesburg prosecutions boss Andrew Chauke has drawn renewed attention to the internal workings, procedures, and leadership dynamics of South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). The proceedings, which continue this week, follow a formal complaint lodged by national prosecutions chief advocate Shamila Batohi, raising serious questions about Chauke’s fitness to hold office.
Chauke’s conduct has been under scrutiny since July, when President Cyril Ramaphosa suspended him pending the outcome of the inquiry. The decision came after Batohi lodged a complaint alleging that Chauke made questionable prosecutorial decisions, some of which she believes may have been politically motivated. These allegations strike at the core responsibility of the NPA: to conduct prosecutions that are fair, impartial, and independent of political influence.
On Wednesday, Batohi spent the afternoon providing technical evidence to the commission, detailing how the NPA’s hierarchy and prosecutorial authority function. Her testimony is expected to continue on Thursday as the inquiry examines whether Chauke acted within or outside the bounds of his mandated powers.
Batohi Takes the Stand in High-Stakes NPA Inquiry
In her testimony, Batohi emphasized the distinct roles played by the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), a position she currently occupies, and the Directors of Public Prosecutions (DPPs), who oversee provincial and regional prosecutions. According to her explanation, prosecutorial decisions—specifically the decision on whether to proceed with a prosecution—fall under the authority of the DPP, not the national office.
“The decision to prosecute is the DPP’s. The regional power is the DPP,” Batohi explained. “It is more a managerial function and oversight that resorts in the deputy national director.”
This clarification is significant because Chauke’s legal team has argued that he should not be held responsible for certain controversial prosecutorial decisions, including the decision to charge former KwaZulu-Natal Hawks head Johan Booysen. Chauke’s team claims that the decision was actually made by then acting DPP Nomgcobo Jiba, not Chauke himself.
Batohi’s testimony seeks to untangle the complex web of authority within South Africa’s prosecution service. By outlining the strict division of responsibilities between regional and national leadership, she aims to ensure that the inquiry evaluates Chauke’s conduct based on accurate interpretations of NPA structure.
She underscored that as the national director, she does not have the legal authority to instruct a regional director on whether to prosecute or decline prosecution. Instead, her role is primarily managerial, with oversight responsibilities that ensure uniformity, accountability, and adherence to constitutional principles across the NPA.
“The national director cannot instruct a regional director of prosecutions on whether or not to prosecute,” Batohi reiterated during her testimony.
This assertion challenges any attempts by Chauke’s defense to argue that political pressure or higher-level instructions may have dictated his actions. Instead, it places the responsibility squarely with the regional DPP—unless Chauke can prove that he, in fact, did not make the decisions in question.
The allegations against Chauke are serious. They include claims that he took prosecutorial actions—or failed to take them—in ways that benefited political interests. Such conduct would directly undermine the independence of the NPA, which has been working to restore public trust following years of controversy and allegations of political capture.
If the inquiry concludes that Chauke’s actions were indeed politically influenced, it would not only jeopardize his position but also raise broader concerns about lingering political interference within the prosecutorial system.
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s involvement signals the gravity of the situation. By suspending Chauke and establishing a formal inquiry, Ramaphosa acknowledged the importance of ensuring public confidence in the NPA’s independence. His decision also reinforces the principle that no senior official, regardless of rank, should evade accountability.
The inquiry is now focused on clarifying the procedural context in which Chauke made controversial decisions. Batohi will continue presenting evidence on Thursday, offering further insight into the roles, responsibilities, and checks within the NPA.
Her testimony is expected to be pivotal as the inquiry weighs the charges against Chauke. For many observers, the outcome will serve as a litmus test for the NPA’s commitment to rooting out internal misconduct and ensuring that political interests cannot influence prosecutions.
As the inquiry progresses, Batohi’s testimony remains central to understanding the structural and ethical expectations placed on senior prosecutors. Her detailed explanations aim to help the commission distinguish lawful prosecutorial authority from potential abuses of power. The proceedings will not only determine Chauke’s professional future but may also reshape public perceptions of the NPA’s ongoing transformation.
Source- EWN
