Simon Nare
The Nkabinde Inquiry has dismissed former National Director of Public Prosecutions Shamila Batohi’s bid to consult her lawyers while under oath, saying she failed to show that refusing the request would undermine her procedural fairness rights.
In a ruling delivered on Friday, chairperson and retired Constitutional Court Justice Bess Nkabinde said Batohi had not “proffered specific facts suggestive of her rights to procedural fairness being compromised” and that no constitutional imperative justified allowing her to obtain legal advice while her testimony remained incomplete.
Batohi walked out of the inquiry in December 2025 while still under cross-examination by Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC, who acts for suspended South Gauteng Director of Public Prosecutions Andrew Chauke.
The panel is probing Chauke’s fitness to hold office.
“In my view, even though the Panel could exercise its discretion in pursuit to accommodate the Applicant’s request, she has not proffered specific facts suggestive of her rights to procedural fairness being compromised that triggers flexibility,” Nkabinde ruled.
Nkabinde said Batohi had argued that being allowed to consult her lawyers would ensure that her interests, and those of her former office, were “adequately advanced and protected” and would enable her to give evidence “properly” if she continued to testify.
“It is unclear what giving evidence ‘properly’ seeks to suggest. The Applicant has testified and I can assume that the tendered evidence was given properly because it was given under oath,” Nkabinde said.
“She does not need to be advised in order to give her testimony properly. Furthermore, it is claimed that the relief sought will enable the Applicant’s legal representatives to adhere to their ethical and professional duties in relation to her testimony before the Panel. This proposition is unsound.”
She also rejected Batohi’s argument that the cross-examination exposed her to possible administrative and legal consequences in her personal and professional capacity, including allegations that she may have perjured herself, defeated the ends of justice, or failed to act on crimes brought to her attention.
“The said administrative legal consequences bear no relevance to the mandate of this Panel. Similarly, the alleged public sentiments concerning the Applicant are irrelevant. The Applicant, as the former head of the NPA cannot escape public scrutiny,” Nkabinde said.
Nkabinde said it was also unclear why Batohi needed legal advice to testify on matters relating to Chauke’s fitness to hold office.
“Besides, the Applicant is the one who caused the President to initiate the inquiry against the First Respondent. There is no suggestion that the Panel has adopted any approach that has sacrificed the Applicant’s procedural fairness other than the Applicant’s mentioning of instances during cross-examination,” she said.
She added that the manner of cross-examination could not, by any standard, be regarded as adverse administrative action or used as a basis to seek legal advice. The panel dismissed the application.
INSIDE POLITICS