The Umkhonto WeSizwe Party's legal challenge against former National Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Shamila Batohi's pension raises questions about the urgency and merit of their claims.
Image: File
The legal challenges mounted by the Umkhonto WeSizwe Party (MKP) against former National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Advocate Shamila Batohi's pension are likely to face intense scrutiny, according to legal experts analysing the case before the Pretoria North Gauteng High Court.
The MKP’s urgent application, lodged on Monday, seeks to halt Batohi's pension and other post-employment benefits, citing allegations of misconduct and neglect of duty during her NDPP tenure.
Legal expert Nthabiseng Dubazana from Dubazana Attorneys told the Daily News that the MKP must effectively establish the urgency of their application or risk jeopardising the merit of their claims.
“Seeing as it is an urgent application, the first hurdle they have to overcome is urgency. They must convince the court that the matter is urgent; if they fail on urgency, then the merits will not be entertained,” she explained.
The court documents submitted by the MKP stipulate that they are seeking an interdict to prevent various state entities including the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), National Treasury, and the Government Employees Pension Fund from approving or disbursing Batohi's pension until their review application is completed.
The application raises allegations surrounding Batohi’s integrity, including potential perjury claims, which the MKP asserts necessitate thorough investigation before any public funds are disbursed.
The MKP's three-pronged application pertains to: an interdict to block Batohi's pension payout, a securing mechanism for any payments made, and a mandate to reclaim funds should the inquiry rule in their favour.
Part A seeks to restrain state entities from moving forward with Batohi’s pension payment until all legal proceedings are concluded, and, if payments are made, a sufficient amount must be withheld as security. Parts B and C address the MKP’s rights to file a review application challenging any irregular payments and asserting their right to recoup funds should the inquiry rule in their favour.
The party has also called on President Cyril Ramaphosa to initiate a formal inquiry under the National Prosecuting Authority Act regarding Batohi's conduct.
However, both Dubazana and fellow legal expert Lawson Naidoo view the MKP's efforts as potentially fraught with difficulty. Naidoo described the MKP’s actions as a form of grandstanding, highlighting the absence of any formal findings against Batohi, which diminishes the basis for withholding her pension.
“There is no finding against Batohi; therefore, there is no basis for the president to withhold her pension,” he stated. He elaborated on how the case's context and implications differ significantly from the situation involving former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, whose pension was withheld following her impeachment.
The National Prosecuting Authority has acknowledged receiving the MKP's court documents and confirmed that it would respond according to legal protocols.
“The NPA confirms being served with an urgent application for an interdict by lawyers representing the Umkhonto WeSizwe Party. In view of the fact that the NPA is cited as a respondent, we will respond in line with legally acceptable High Court procedures,” spokesperson Bulelwa Makeke stated.
Advocate Batohi's legal team, HNM attorneys, did not respond to questions sent to them at the time of publishing.
DAILY NEWS