National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Advocate Shamila Batohi on Wednesday faced probing questions at the Nkabinde inquiry into the fitness of suspended South Gauteng Director of Public Prosecutions, Advocate Andrew Chauke, to hold office.
Chauke was suspended by President Cyril Ramaphosa pending the outcome of the inquiry.
Batohi told the panel that while she had not initially been furnished with the full evidence in the matter, she relied on legal opinions prepared by senior advocates who had assessed Chauke’s alleged role in two high-profile cases: the former Hawks head Major-General Johan Booysen matter and the matter involving former Crime Intelligence boss Lt-Gen Richard Mdluli.
Admitted to relying on legal opinions
“Although I had not been placed with the evidence in this matter, I did have Advocate Nalene’s opinion in this matter that dealt with both the former Hawks head Maj-Gen Johan Booysen matter as well as the former head of Crime Intelligence Lt-Gen Richard Mdluli matter and recommended a referral to the president in respect of both these matters,” she testified.
Batohi said she also sought a second opinion to ensure her decision-making was sound.
“Advocate Harley was intimately involved in this matter at the Zondo Commission. And I requested him to give me a further opinion so that I also have evidence that I would consider to ensure that I was getting it right. So that is when I requested a further opinion, and he provided the opinion with annexures,” she said.
According to Batohi, those annexures included material from the investigating officer.
“As I testified earlier, the annexures included an affidavit or a statement, I am not sure, by the investigating officer that set out the essential aspects of the evidence.”
Focus on signed affidavit
The panel then confronted Batohi with her own affidavit. They said it gave the impression that her team had concluded there was a sufficient basis to implicate Chauke in the Mdluli matter.
They asked whether she had drafted and signed the affidavit voluntarily after satisfying herself of its contents.
“That is correct,” Batohi responded.
The inquiry also questioned whether Batohi’s conclusions about Chauke originated from her own assessment or from the panel’s findings.
They referred her to her earlier statement that she depended on the panels because she trusted their work.
Batohi clarified her position.
“I am not sure in what context I said this. But I certainly said I took into account all of the opinions and when I came to the conclusion that I did.”
The inquiry continues.
Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content
