By Simon Nare
The Nkabinde Inquiry has heard that former KwaZulu-Natal Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Simphiwe Mlotshwa was unable to assist the panel on key issues, citing a lack of evidence and limited knowledge of the matters under review.
The inquiry, chaired by retired Constitutional Court Justice Bess Nkabinde, is probing the fitness of South Gauteng DPP Advocate Andrew Chauke to hold office.
Mlotshwa, who testified on his role in racketeering charges linked to the now-disbanded Cato Manor organised crime unit, conceded under cross-examination that he had no evidence suggesting Chauke was unfit for office.
During questioning by Chauke’s counsel, Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, Mlotshwa said Chauke had never pressured him to sign a prosecution memorandum or authorise charges without evidence, as previously alleged by National Director of Public Prosecutions Shamila Batohi.
He also denied claims that Chauke attempted to force him to sign a non-existent case docket, stating he had never dealt with such a document.
Mlotshwa further told the inquiry he could not assist on several allegations, including claims that Chauke defended a review application without evidence, reinstated racketeering charges, or withdrew murder charges against former crime intelligence head Richard Mdluli, as these occurred after his tenure.
He said he had no evidence that Chauke acted unlawfully, disregarded court processes, violated National Prosecuting Authority policy, or brought the institution into disrepute.
Pressed on his relevance, Ngcukaitobi asked: “Why are you here if you cannot assist the panel on the terms of reference?”
Mlotshwa said he had been called by the evidence leaders to testify on his interactions with Chauke relating to the Cato Manor charges.
“I was invited as an officer of the court to explain my engagements with Mr Chauke, including email correspondence that forms part of the evidence,” he said.
“That is why I had difficulty drafting my affidavit. My understanding was that it was meant only to outline those engagements, based on my discussions with the evidence leaders.”
INSIDE POLITICS
