KARYN MAUGHAN: NPA's credibility deficit keeps it on the defensive
Until the prosecuting authority has a qualified and independent leader, the decisions it makes, particularly in politically sensitive cases, will be greeted with suspicion
When it comes to some of its most politically sensitive cases, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is spending nearly all of its time defending its decisions to prosecute in the first place, and not actually putting anyone on trial. The credibility crisis gripping the NPA for nearly a decade has fuelled half a dozen legal challenges to the state’s determination to press on with prosecutions of people perceived to be in the political firing line. From former top SA Revenue Service (Sars) official Johann van Loggerenberg to Cato Manor serious and violent crime unit police officials, to politically connected KwaZulu-Natal businessperson Thoshan Panday and former KwaZulu-Natal Hawks boss Johan Booysen, the accused in some of the NPA’s most high-profile cases have argued that the state’s decisions to prosecute them were irrational and unlawful. EFF leader Julius Malema is fighting to have the law used by the NPA to charge him with inciting people to occupy land — the apartheid-era R...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.