NPA's Credibility Crisis: How the Omotoso and Fort Hare trials expose systemic failures
Parliamentary Scrutiny
Timothy Omotoso and his two co-accused, Lusanda Sulani and Zukiswa Sitho, were acquitted of all charges related to racketeering, trafficking in persons, rape, and sexual assault. The acquittal has been described as a miscarriage of justice by gender rights groups.
Image: Raahil Sain / IOL
THE National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI, alias Hawks) were forced to defend their credibility, competence, and commitment to justice in a nail-biting parliamentary grilling, as parliamentarians accused them of dragging their feet, losing high-profile cases, and failing the public’s trust.
At a Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) meeting chaired by RISE Mzansi’s Songezo Zibi, the legislators delivered a scathing assessment of the state of the country’s criminal justice system, demanding answers on why so many corruption cases referred by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) were not resulting in convictions.
“To the public and the parliamentarians, it seems there are a myriad of issues in cases lost, the lengthy conclusion of cases, postponements made,” Zibi said in his opening. “It is important for the NPA to speak to these issues.”
Action SA’s Athol Trollip focused largely on what he described as a “Stalingrad tactic” — a reference to drawn-out legal strategies that delay justice indefinitely. “I was unable to reconcile the claims made [by the NPA] with the claims by the Justice Committee on how successful the NPA was, considering the lack of prosecutions the public and parliamentarians saw,” he said.
He wasn’t alone in his frustration. The EFF’s Ntombovuyo Mente-Nkuna highlighted 18 cases the NPA declined to prosecute in 2024, dropping to 15 in the latest report, but the reason given was simply “no grounds to prosecute”. She raised her concerns: “The issue speaks to the capacity issues the chairperson referred to. At what point were these cases referred to the NPA? At what point did the NPA find them non-prosecutable? And who monitored this process?” she asked.
One case became a lightning rod for criticism: the Timothy Omotoso trial, where prosecutors were removed for “incompetence” — only to be reassigned to the Fort Hare corruption case, involving “massive corruption, supply chain management infiltration, and assassinations”.
“The original prosecutors were removed from the case for incompetence, and the same prosecutors were reappointed to the Fort Hare case,” the legislators noted. “There were mechanisms to track cases, yet this happened.”
Advocate Shamila Batohi, National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), acknowledged the concerns. “As a result, I appointed a team of highly experienced prosecutors from outside the Eastern Cape to look into the transcript on the matter,” she said, adding they would assess whether the judge’s criticisms were justified and if “disciplinary action or further training” was needed. “I am still waiting for the report,” she said.
The integrity of the NPA’s case selection also came under heavy scrutiny. Members asked the NPA if it was following certain people as opposed to following the evidence. And it could not be the case that all the high-profile cases it was working on were not being concluded or seemed to have some or other problem.
One MP cited the case of former Eskom executive Matshela Koko, asking: “Before the case was taken to the media, was there not enough investigative capacity to establish if the matter was prosecutable or not, before people’s lives and reputations were ruined?” Batohi responded: “We sought to hold those in power accountable, the ones who benefited the most, and not only the foot soldiers at the bottom.”
She went on to dismiss claims of political interference: “I adamantly and vehemently deny this. Not in the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) space, no one had tried to interfere… the Idac space was one not only guided by independence, guarded by the Constitution, but by the integrity of self and the institution.” Batohi added a rather sobering caveat: “One cannot say there would never be an attempt. If anyone had evidence, it should be brought to the forum.”
The Hawks were grilled on their investigative rigour. The ANC’s Ntando Maduna asked: “What measures were taken to ensure investigations were intelligence-driven? How was the effectiveness of investigations measured? What indicators were used to determine the success of investigations?”
He further warned against over-reliance on external consultants: “Once external service providers were involved in sensitive matters, there was an opportunity for matters to be compromised and matters became biased.”
Lieutenant-General Mbotho defended the DPCI, saying they were recruiting investigators with critical qualifications in law and accounting, and using cybercrime and forensic accounting specialists to bridge skills gaps during a “transitory period”.
But the ANC’s Helen Neale-May saw a deeper problem: “I had not heard any mention of a turnaround strategy at the DPCI.” She accused the unit of squandering the SIU’s hard work: “The SIU spent years gathering evidence, and the DPCI should be leveraging this, adding the missing pieces to go to court. What we are seeing is disjointed information and structures.”
A glimmer of hope emerged with the launch of a Proof of Concept (PoC) system developed by the State Information Technology Agency (Sita) to track SIU referrals to the NPA. “Each SIU referral has a unique reference number, which will now make it easier for the SIU and NPA to reconcile numbers,” said Advocate Kanyane.
The system went live on April 1 this year, tracking cases from “motivation for a proclamation through to implementation of criminal recommendations.” It promises “a single version of the truth” and real-time dashboard reporting.
But it’s only active for the North Gauteng NPA office, and its full rollout hinges on a July 2025 evaluation. “It will be decided if the system should be further developed and expanded,” officials said.
Meanwhile, the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) reported 86 confiscation and forfeiture orders, up by two since November 2024. However, MPs wanted more: “What is the difference between restitutions, punitive reparations, and preservation orders?”
Advocate Rabaji-Rasethaba explained the AFU’s role in Eskom, Prasa, Transnet, and municipal corruption cases, but admitted interlocutory applications — legal motions that delay trials — remain a major obstacle. “Obtaining these numbers would be a challenge,” she conceded, but promised the NPA would “endeavour to provide it”.
The witness protection system also came under scrutiny. “How can people come out safely to point out corruption taking place?” MPs asked. Batohi responded: “It was important for Members to distinguish between witness protection and whistleblower protection.” She offered to provide a report on the Omotoso matter to clarify what went wrong.
The NPA pointed to its two-pronged strategy: “prosecutions, to get people in orange overalls,” and “the forfeiture of assets” under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (Poca).
But MPs remained unconvinced. They demanded consequence management systems to root out collusion or unethical conduct, asked for turnaround strategies, and insisted on cost-effective, integrated plans. The Committee demanded written reports from the NPA on postponements, interlocutory applications, and prosecution outcomes.