By Johnathan Paoli
The DA has submitted a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) application after President Cyril Ramaphosa refused to release the advisory panel report that informed his decision to appoint Advocate Andy Mothibi as National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), intensifying scrutiny over a process already criticised for secrecy and procedural flaws.
In a statement on Sunday, DA Justice and Constitutional Development spokesperson Glynnis Breytenbach said the Presidency had confirmed it would not make the report public, arguing that it was intended solely to guide the President and that there was no obligation to disclose it.
Breytenbach said this stance undermined transparency in a constitutionally significant appointment.
“The President cannot exercise such sweeping constitutional powers behind a veil of secrecy. This report goes to the heart of whether the NDPP appointment process was lawful, rational, and fair. South Africans are entitled to see it,” Breytenbach said.
The PAIA application follows Ramaphosa’s appointment of Mothibi, currently head of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), despite the advisory panel having informed the President that none of the candidates it interviewed were suitable for the role.
Mothibi’s appointment takes effect on 1 February.
While the DA has cautiously welcomed Mothibi’s appointment, expressing hope that it could stabilise and strengthen the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), the party maintains that serious concerns remain about both the composition of the panel and the President’s handling of the process.
Breytenbach said the panel lacked prosecution and criminal justice expertise and failed to properly discharge its mandate.
In a separate statement earlier this week, the DA congratulated Mothibi but warned that he would have limited time to make a meaningful impact in an institution facing deep, systemic challenges.
The party also criticised what it described as months-long delays by the President in initiating the process, followed by a rushed conclusion under time pressure.
The controversy has drawn sharp and varied responses from across the political spectrum.
The EFF said the episode highlighted what it called “executive dictatorship” in key judicial and constitutional appointments, arguing that the failure of the panel to recommend a candidate exposed a legislative loophole that gives excessive discretion to the President.
The MKP went further, claiming the appointment was “pre-orchestrated” and politically motivated.
MKP spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela alleged that Mothibi’s elevation was intended to shield President Ramaphosa’s nephew, Hangwani Maumela, from potential prosecution linked to the Tembisa Hospital corruption scandal.
The party called on Mothibi to act decisively and demonstrate the NPA’s independence.
Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development urged Mothibi to prioritise efficiency, integrity and transparency, with chairperson Xola Nqola saying that Parliament would continue robust oversight of the NPA under its new leadership.
Civil society organisations have echoed concerns about transparency.
Corruption Watch said that while Mothibi has demonstrated competence at the SIU, it would have been preferable for him to undergo the same interview process as other shortlisted candidates.
The organisation warned that deviations from established processes risk undermining public confidence.
As the debate intensifies, the DA insists its PAIA application is a necessary step to ensure accountability.
Breytenbach warned that transparency is not optional when it comes to appointments that affect the independence and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, and that the credibility of the NPA, and public trust in it, depends on it.
INSIDE POLITICS