Simon Nare
The Nkabinde Inquiry has heard that former National Director of Public Prosecutions Shamila Batohi may not have had a detailed, docket-by-docket report on the racketeering charges against the Cato Manor organised crime unit when she decided to withdraw them, but that she was nevertheless thoroughly briefed.
The inquiry into the fitness of South Gauteng Director of Public Prosecutions Andrew Chauke to hold office, chaired by retired Justice Bess Nkabinde, heard on Thursday that the report on which Batohi relied, compiled by a group of internal advocates, was “encrypted” and condensed and did not contain full details of all the dockets on the murder charges faced by unit members.
ALSO READ: Madlanga Commission dismisses Malatji’s claims of Spies being corrupt and out to get him
Advocate Shareen Riley, who was part of the four-member review panel appointed by Batohi to form a legal opinion that would guide her on the validity of the racketeering charges, conceded that the report did not contain “blow by blow” evidence.
However, Riley told the inquiry that the review panel had an extensive presentation with the former NDPP, where the team discussed the report, the evidence and some of the cases over the course of a full day.
The team comprised two Directors of Public Prosecutions, Rodney de Kock and Ivy Thenga, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Riley, and Senior State Advocate Elijah Mamabolo.
Riley said the report was signed by De Kock and Mamabolo, and that she had only seen the final version when it was presented to her by the evidence leaders while she was preparing for the inquiry.
The inquiry heard that Batohi had asked the review panel to look into the decisions taken by her predecessors, former acting NDPP Nomgcobo Jiba and former NDPP Shaun Abrahams, who had both authorised the racketeering prosecutions.
Panel member and senior legal practitioner Matshego Ramagaga wanted to know from Riley whether she believed the report presented to Batohi was sufficient to inform her, as the ultimate decision-maker, on the matter.
ALSO READ: SACP backs Lesufi after Gauteng budget adopted
“I would say yes, and I will, if I may proceed to clarify why I say that. On the 2nd of July, that is part of my statement, there was an in-person meeting with the NDPP, which consisted of myself as well as the panel members where for a whole day we actually sat down, went through the report, discussed with her various cases and the evidence.
“We basically did a presentation to the NDPP. She had an opportunity to interrogate the report but I also think subsequently there was a communication in which the panel members were included and there was also a communication between her and Advocate De Kock where she had various questions that we had to respond to after she had further analysed the report on her own,” testified Riley.
Ramagaga put it to Riley that Batohi’s evidence was that she had come to a conclusion to withdraw the charges on the basis of the report, and had not mentioned in her testimony the presentation and further communication.
Riley said she had an email to prove the communication and the meeting of 2 July.
“Yes, the correspondence can exist but then the person that made the decision says I relied on this report. What do you say to that?” asked Ramagaga.
Riley said she could not take it any further if that was Batohi’s evidence, and that she would accept it.