Question NW813 to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
23 April 2024 - NW813
Herron, Mr BN to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
(1) Whether, with reference to his reply to question 226 on 15 March 2024, and in particular, subsection (1), he has established the reasons that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) failed to prosecute the cases referred for prosecution by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC); if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (2) whether he requested the President of the Republic, Mr M C Ramaphosa, to establish a commission of inquiry, as recommended by the Ntsebeza report, which refers to the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry under either section 84(2)(f) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, or the Commissions Act, Act 8 of 1947, to investigate the extent of, and rationale behind, the political interference with the NPA during the period 2003 until 2017; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) whether the alleged political interference with the NPA, referred to in the Rodrigues judgment and the Ntsebeza report, has been referred to the SA Police Service (SAPS) and/or the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) for investigation, in order for a determination to be made under section 41(1) of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act, Act 32 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (4) whether, if the alleged political interference in the decision to prosecute TRC cases had not been referred to the SAPS and/or DPCI for investigation, the NPA has been able to determine if there has been a violation of sections 32(1)(b) read together with 41(1) of the NPA Act; if not, why not; if so, (a) has there been a decision to prosecute and (b) what are the relevant details? NW991E
Reply:
1. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) did not fail to prosecute cases emanating from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). In fact, a total of nine Priority Crimes Litigation Unit (PCLU) prosecutions were noted between 2003 and 2017. An additional six seminal TRC cases were subsequently enrolled by the NPA.
2. The decision to appoint Adv Ntsebeza, Senior Counsel was taken by the NPA leadership in line with the Roderigues judgment. His mandate was to review the measures that the NPA had adopted to deal with the TRC matters, and assess whether they were adequate, if they were found not to be, to make recommendations to strengthen them. However, in the process of review, said Senior Counsel had reason to believe that there was information that would amount to a violation of Section 41(1) of the NPA Act, 32 of 1998.
Adv Ntsebeza, SC, was however unable, due to “lack of an investigative arm”, to make a recommendation in respect of an investigation in terms of section 41(1) of the NPA Act, 32 of 1998. Instead, he recommended a commission of inquiry to allow implicated individuals to be given a platform to respond to the grave allegations against them.
3. A determination on whether there was a violation of section 32(1)(b) read with section 41(1) of the NPA Act has not been made as of yet. Such can only be made once the allegations have been properly canvassed by either a Commission of Enquiry, or a criminal investigation conducted by the SAPS or the DPCI.
4. The Minister is still considering all the options with regards to the recommendations for Commission of Inquiry.