Batohi Returns to the Stand in Inquiry Into Advocate Andrew Chauke’s Fitness to Hold Office
National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Shamila Batohi has once again taken the witness stand as the inquiry into Johannesburg prosecutions boss Advocate Andrew Chauke’s fitness to hold office intensifies. Her return marks a significant moment in a process that continues to expose deep tensions within the upper ranks of South Africa’s prosecuting authority. At the heart of the inquiry is whether Chauke acted within the bounds of his legal powers when he involved himself in one of the most contentious prosecutorial decisions of recent years: the case against former KwaZulu-Natal Hawks commander Johan Booysen.
According to Batohi, Chauke’s conduct was not only irregular but an outright breach of legal protocol. During her testimony, she reiterated that Chauke had no legal mandate to participate in, lead, or direct the prosecution team assembled in 2015 to pursue charges against Booysen and members of the Cato Manor unit. These allegations form the core of the inquiry and raise serious questions about authority, oversight, and accountability within the NPA.
Batohi’s Key Allegations Against Chauke
In her testimony, Batohi laid out what she described as a clear overreach by Chauke, who allegedly acted beyond the scope of his jurisdiction. Her evidence suggested that Chauke’s involvement in the Booysen matter was not only unauthorized but undermined the authority of the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in KwaZulu-Natal at the time.
“The essence of the allegation of Advocate Chauke,” Batohi explained, “is that he exercised or purported to exercise prosecutorial powers and functions in circumstances that he had no authority to do so. He undermined or attempted to undermine the authority of the acting DPP of KwaZulu-Natal.”
This statement underscores the seriousness with which Batohi views the alleged misconduct. For an institution already battling public skepticism and historical issues of political interference, such claims carry significant weight. Batohi, who has consistently championed restoring credibility to the NPA, positioned her testimony as necessary for rebuilding institutional integrity.
The case at the center of the controversy dates back to 2015, when former acting NPA head Nomgcobo Jiba authorized the prosecution of Booysen and members of the Cato Manor unit. They were accused of overseeing a so-called “death squad.” However, the charges were later widely criticized as baseless, politically motivated, and unsupported by evidence. Jiba’s decision-making during this period became the subject of intense national scrutiny and later contributed to her own disciplinary challenges.
It is within this complicated backdrop that the allegations against Chauke emerged. As Johannesburg’s chief prosecutor, Chauke did not fall under the KwaZulu-Natal jurisdiction, and according to Batohi, he would have had no valid reason to interfere in prosecutorial decisions taking place in another province. Yet, he allegedly played a leading role in directing the prosecution team responsible for pursuing the case against Booysen.
Batohi’s position is that such involvement defied established legal and administrative structures designed to ensure that prosecutors operate within defined boundaries. The inquiry aims to determine whether Chauke’s conduct constituted a serious breach of professional ethics, a misuse of authority, or potentially even an attempt to influence prosecutorial outcomes for improper purposes.
The testimony delivered by Batohi does more than outline allegations against a senior prosecutor—it highlights broader issues about governance, accountability, and the distribution of authority within the NPA. As the institution works to regain the public’s trust following years of internal dysfunction and allegations of political interference, her statements reinforce her commitment to ensuring that no official, regardless of rank, operates above the law.
Moreover, Batohi’s decision to step forward as the main complainant in the inquiry signals a clear departure from previous eras in the NPA, where internal challenges were often kept hidden or unaddressed. Her leadership style emphasizes transparency, fairness, and a willingness to confront wrongdoing directly.
The outcome of the inquiry into Chauke’s fitness to hold office will likely have significant consequences—not only for Chauke himself but for the internal culture of the NPA. Should the inquiry find that he acted without authority, it could lead to disciplinary action, further restructuring within the prosecutorial hierarchy, and a re-evaluation of oversight mechanisms.
For Batohi, the inquiry represents another step in her efforts to restore credibility within the prosecuting authority. Her testimony underscores her stance that accountability must be upheld at every level, especially among those entrusted with powerful prosecutorial responsibilities.
As proceedings continue, all eyes remain on how the inquiry will unfold—and what it will reveal about the future direction of the NPA under Batohi’s leadership.
