National Advocate, Shamila Batohi who serves as South Africa's National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP). Image credit: Phil Magakoe
(The Post News) – National Prosecuting Head, Adv Shamila Batohi was confronted with a question on Monday. Batohi was asked whether did the Nkabinde Inquiry’s terms of reference resemble that of a criminal indictment. Retired Judge Bess Nkabinde asked the question. She is leading the inquiry into the fitness of suspended Johannesburg Director of Public Prosecutions, Andrew Chauke.
Nkabinde suspects that President Cyril Ramaphosa’s terms of reference to the inquiry are similar to an indictment. It is akin to a criminal prosecution. Batohi agreed to this theory but suggested that it cannot only be limited to that. Monday, 24th November 2025 was the fourth day of Batohi testifying before the Inquiry. Chauke Faces allegations of protecting politically connected individuals as well as high profile case-mismanagement.
Booysen and Members of Cato Manor Unit Downfall
Chauke’s actions resulted in drawn-out litigation as well as a tainted reputation of the National Prosecution Authority (NPA). Evidence leader, Advocate David Mohlamonyane said the inquiry is concerned about two main complaints about Chauke. The first one regards the institution of racketeering charges against General Booysen and memebers of the Cato Manor Unit. Inclusive of the subsequent defenses of the proceedings instituted by Booysens to exclude the racketeering certificates.
The second complaint is related to his conduct regarding failure to continue with charges against General Richard Mduli. This is regards to charges laid against Mduli based on his involvement in the murder of Tefo Ramogibe. Both issues resulted in litigation of various public interest bodies and organizations.
Chauke had reportedly insisted that Booysen and Cato members face prosecution on racketeering charges. It was said that there is no existing evidence linking them to this matter. On Monday, Batohi focused on emails and other documentation regarding the Booysen and Cato Manor matter. Mahoti did this purposefully to expose Chauke’s mission to charge them with racketeering.
Batohi stated that Chauke is the DPP for South Gauteng (Johannesburg) and this serves as his jurisdiction. She testified about his involvement. He helped ensure Booysen and members of the Cato Unit faced prosecution in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). This was apparently out of his jurisdiction.
Chauke alleged that he acted impulsively due to his role as a co-ordinator. He claimed it was a request from Jiba in the matter. He did not take any prosecutorial decisions pertaining the racketeering charges and the certificate. Judge Nkabinde continuously questioned how Batohi’s evidence is tied to terms of reference given by the president to the inquiry.
Are We “Fixing the Country” or is it “Personal”?
Nkabinde alongside the panel wanted a thorough understanding of the alleged lawlessness in Chauke’s conduct. She said that based on reference, there is no clarity given on what is the cause to Chauke’s misbehavior. She asked Batohi why she involved the President in Chauke’s suspension. She also questioned the imposition of an investigation on his recent behavior. Batoyi responded to this question. She said that all will be clarified in due course. Additionally, she added that the evidence will confirm Chauke’s transgressions as DPP.
In Booysen’s case, Chauke’s defense is him not being responsible for the authority given to the racketeering of charges. He claims that Acting NDPP, Adv Jiba, took this decision. All he did was just support the motion. His counsel informed the panel of the allegations against him being of vague nature and humiliating.
About the Author
