Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi has dismantled National Director of Public Prosecutions Shamila Batohi’s testimony on Monday in Pretoria.
Ngcukaitobi accused Batohi of irresponsibly dragging state capture into the inquiry against Advocate Andrew Chauke without any evidence linking him to it.
During a heated cross-examination at the Nkabinde inquiry, Ngcukaitobi reminded Batohi that she had repeatedly mentioned state capture in her evidence.
“Yes, I remember that,” Batohi responded.
Ngcukaitobi then set out his definition.
“The definition of state capture is a misuse of the state and its organs for private gain or for unlawful aims. Do you accept that definition?”
“Yes,” Batohi said.
No evidence linking Chauke to state capture
“Do you have any personal knowledge that Advocate Chauke was involved in state capture?” he further asked.
“I don’t have any personal knowledge,” Batohi conceded.
“So then, it is grossly irresponsible of you to mention state capture in the context of Advocate Chauke when you have no personal knowledge of his involvement in state capture.”
When Batohi asked if she should comment, Ngcukaitobi said she was attempting to poison the atmosphere.
“If you want to. I am putting it to you that I will argue that you were attempting to poison the atmosphere when you had no evidence, but you mentioned state capture together with Mr Chauke.”
“The reason why I did is that I was asked about why I took certain actions when I did. And I explained that because that was in fact the NPA and capture of the criminal justice system was something that the Zondo commission was inquiring into. I could not turn a [ignore] the fact that that was what was being inquired into,” Batohi responded.
Inquiry not related to state capture
Ngcukaitobi argued that the Nkabinde inquiry had no relation with the state capture.
“We are in an inquiry against Advocate Chauke, we are not in a state-capture inquiry. My question was simple and you have given me an answer, you have no evidence that Advocate Chauke was involved in state capture, yet you repeatedly mentioned state capture in the context of this inquiry.”
He added the retired police boss Major General Johan Booysen matter.
“Was there sufficient evidence in your opinion, having studied the dockets if you did, to support a murder charge against Major-General Booysen? At the time you took the decision to institute a disciplinary case against Advocate Chauke, you relied on a report of Advocate De Kok, you never studied the docket, is that not correct?”
“There wasn’t and that is correct I did not study the dockets,” she answered.
“Did you know that Advocate Chauke read the docket?” asked Ngcukaitobi.
Batohi said she would have expected Chauke to read the docket.
“But you have come to say to the panel there was no case against Major-General Booysen without ever having read the docket. Can I suggest that that is an astonishing proposition coming from the head of our prosecution services. And I am going to tell the panel that your evidence must be rejected as incredible, because it is irresponsible to make such a claim without having read the docket.”
The inquiry has been postponed to Thursday.
