Shamila Batohi faces scrutiny over the handling of Major General Johan Booysen's charges

The embattled National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Shamila Batohi, finds herself at the centre of a storm of criticism regarding her handling of charges against former Hawks Head, Major General Johan Booysen.

Legal expert and senior lecturer at the University of KwaZulu-Natal School of Law, Dr. Suhayfa Bhamjee, stated that Batohi should have scrutinised the documentation she received from Advocate Andrew Chauke, given the gravity of the charges against Booysen.

“As you said, it's racketeering. It should have had much closer scrutiny and a much tighter rein on what we have before us, and going forward with something that you can back up that, 'look, this is a decision we're taking and this is how we're moving forward',” Bhamjee said.

She noted that the matter has been extensively discussed on various platforms, highlighting that the NDPP's role is crucial and critical.

The South Gauteng Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Chauke was suspended earlier this year by President Cyril Ramaphosa, following concerns that his continued tenure would negatively affect the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)

Regarding Batohi’s argument that she didn’t see the emails sent to her, the legal expert remarked that either way, the emails would have come to light at some point, asserting that she would have had to have seen them.

“I mean, it's not difficult to read receipts, delivery reports, etc...I miss an email, you miss an email, but if it's brought to our attention, in all of this that's been going on, we would have been alerted to it and had a much more reasonable response to why, or just an honest response to why I missed the email,” she concluded.

At an inquiry examining the fitness to hold office of Advocate Chauke, Batohi admitted to not having read the docket pertaining to Booysen and his unit before controversially withdrawing racketeering charges against them.

During a rigorous cross-examination on Monday morning, Batohi was pressed by Chauke's legal representative, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, who emphasised the severity of her admission.

“You say to the panel there was no case against Major General Booysen without ever having read the docket," Ngcukaitobi asserted, suggesting that this statement reflects poorly on the integrity of the prosecution service.

“It is irresponsible to make such a claim without having read the docket,” he added, indicative of the wider struggles faced by South Africa’s judicial framework.

Batohi, who has long held the position at the helm of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), defended her actions by claiming that case law absolves National Directors from needing to read every piece of evidence in detail.

Instead, she stated that she relied on legal opinions and reports from a panel that she herself had appointed to evaluate the case.

“I did not see the necessity to read the docket; my legal team assessed and summarised the key facts,” Batohi reiterated amidst mounting pressure.

Ironically, the head of NDPP, refused to testify immediately after the lunch break stating that she needed to obtain proper legal counsel.

When the enquiry chairperson Bess Nkabinde asked of her whereabouts, evidence leader David Mohlamomyane Senior Council told the panel, that Batohi had indicated she would like to be excused from the proceedings to seek legal advice.

Mohlamonyane told Nkabinde that Batohi was still in the building but was not willing to return to the chamber.

“The situation as it stands is that she is not here because she is asking to be excused and wishes to seek legal counsel. She is asking the panel to excuse her,” Mohlamonyane said.

Upon her return, Nkabinde asked why she decided to stay away without seeking the panel’s permission.

In her response, Batohi said she decided not to return pending proper legal counsel.

However,Nkabinde did not take any of her reasons saying that Batohi needed to ask the panel in person or put an application through her legal team as she was still under oath.

Batohi replied she was not seeking permission. “It is something I decided I needed to do because it concerns me and my integrity.”

Asked if she thought she could do whatever she wanted without approaching the panel, Batohi replied: “I did not want to come here because I did not want to be subjected to this kind of questioning. I would appreciate it if I could be excused now.”

When asked if her refusal to answer questions at the enquiry will have detrimental effects on the outcome, the law expert Bhamjee said her decision to stay away would not necessarily frustrate the process, as she was not the only witness in the matter.

“She's not the only witness or the only person giving testimony at the commission, but she is the key one, so the key person to bring evidence.

if an application is brought to have her evidence struck off, you're quite right in saying it's as if it never happened, and pretty much whatever she could have accounted for or substantiated then essentially becomes hearsay.

Unless, of course, you've got other witnesses who are able to corroborate and beef up,” she explained.

She concluded by emphasising that it would be very difficult when the key witness testimony was no longer admissible or as if it never happened to try and secure a particular case.