National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Advocate Shamila Batohi returned to the Nkabinde Enquiry for cross-examination after providing two weeks of initial evidence. The proceedings are focused on Batohi’s complaint against Gauteng Director of Public Prosecutions Andrew Chauke and the prosecutorial decisions that led to the inquiry.
The central issue is Advocate Chauke’s fitness to hold office, following allegations that he shielded high-profile figures and made politically motivated prosecutorial choices. Batohi informed the panel that her decision to refer Chauke’s case to President Cyril Ramaphosa was based on expert advice. A brief adjournment was required to allow Chauke’s defence team to prepare further.
Tension arose when Batohi claimed she had been told she would not face cross-examination, a claim rejected by retired Justice Bess Nkabinde, who cautioned against impugning the integrity of the inquiry’s chair and co-chairs. Chauke’s lawyers intensified the cross-examination, accusing Batohi of “poisoning the atmosphere” by linking him to state capture.
They pressured her to provide substantive evidence for the assertions that shaped the inquiry’s mandate and public perception. The contentious exchanges underscored critical questions regarding prosecutorial independence, institutional accountability, and the necessary evidentiary threshold for disciplining senior prosecutors, with legal teams challenging both factual claims and procedural fairness.
The inquiry has maintained a careful procedural approach: the evidence-leading team concluded Batohi’s evidence-in-chief before the defence counsel began their detailed cross-examination. The panel has consistently sought to balance the need for rigorous scrutiny with fairness towards the respondent. The Nkabinde Enquiry’s eventual findings are expected to have significant ramifications for public trust in the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the process for investigating and adjudicating allegations against senior prosecutors.
