Shamila Batohi Walks Out of Inquiry Into Andrew Chauke’s Fitness to Hold Office
National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Shamila Batohi dramatically abandoned proceedings at the inquiry into the fitness of Johannesburg Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Andrew Chauke to hold office, shortly after being reprimanded by the inquiry panel. The unexpected move followed mounting pressure from panel members, who had repeatedly asked Batohi to substantiate serious allegations she has made against Chauke.
The inquiry, chaired by retired Justice Bess Nkabinde, has been examining whether Chauke remains fit to serve as DPP amid claims of politically motivated prosecutorial decisions. Shamila Batohi has been the central witness in the proceedings, presenting evidence against Chauke over the past two weeks.
Throughout her testimony, Shamila Batohi has accused Chauke of abusing his authority by making prosecutorial decisions driven by political considerations rather than legal merit. However, panel members have consistently pressed her to provide concrete evidence to support these claims.
Over the last two weeks, Batohi faced rigorous questioning from the panel, which sought clarity and documentation to substantiate her assertions. The sustained scrutiny appeared to heighten tensions during the inquiry, culminating in a dramatic confrontation during Monday’s sitting.
Shamila Batohi Under Pressure to Substantiate Allegations
The turning point in the proceedings came when Shamila Batohi disclosed that she had spoken to KwaZulu-Natal Director of Public Prosecutions Elaine Harrison over the weekend. According to Batohi, the conversation related to a decision to withdraw prosecution in one of the controversial Cato Manor Unit cases.
This disclosure immediately raised alarm bells for the inquiry panel. Justice Nkabinde questioned Batohi sharply, pointing out that Harrison could potentially be a witness in the inquiry. The panel reprimanded Batohi, warning that engaging with possible witnesses about matters before the inquiry could compromise the integrity of the process.
The reprimand marked a tense moment in the proceedings, underscoring the seriousness with which the panel viewed adherence to procedural rules.
Following the reprimand, the inquiry adjourned for a lunch break. When proceedings resumed, Shamila Batohi did not return to the witness stand. Instead, she left the chamber without seeking permission from the panel, a move that further escalated the situation.
The panel later recalled Batohi, but the damage had already been done. Her departure raised questions about decorum, accountability, and respect for the inquiry process, especially given her position as the head of the NPA.
After being recalled, Shamila Batohi formally indicated that she was not prepared to continue testifying until she had obtained legal advice. She subsequently left the sitting, effectively halting her testimony for the day.
Her decision to pause participation has sparked widespread debate within legal and political circles. Some observers argue that Batohi’s request for legal counsel is reasonable given the gravity of the inquiry and the personal implications of her testimony. Others, however, have questioned whether her conduct undermines the authority of the panel and the credibility of the process.
The walkout by Shamila Batohi has added another layer of controversy to an already high-stakes inquiry. As head of the NPA, Batohi’s actions are being closely scrutinized, with critics arguing that she should be setting an example of transparency and cooperation.
Supporters, on the other hand, contend that Batohi is navigating a complex legal environment where procedural missteps could have serious consequences. They argue that seeking legal advice before continuing testimony is a prudent step rather than an act of defiance.
The inquiry is expected to resume once Shamila Batohi has consulted her legal team and indicated her readiness to continue testifying. The panel will likely address the issue of her communication with potential witnesses and determine how this may affect the proceedings.
As the inquiry continues, attention will remain firmly on Batohi’s testimony and whether she can provide the evidence required to support her allegations against Andrew Chauke. The outcome could have significant implications not only for Chauke’s career but also for public confidence in the leadership of the NPA.
For now, Shamila Batohi’s decision to step away from the inquiry marks a pivotal moment in a process that continues to test the boundaries of accountability, procedure, and prosecutorial independence in South Africa.
Source- EWN
