Nkabinde Inquiry scrutinises Chauke's decision-making authority regarding Booysen charges

The inquiry into Johannesburg prosecutions boss Andrew Chauke has intensely scrutinised his decision-making authority, specifically concerning the racketeering charges levelled against former KwaZulu-Natal Hawks boss, Johan Booysen.

National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Shamila Batohi is the main complainant and has been testifying in Chauke's inquiry in Pretoria. Batohi has accused Chauke of making politically motivated decisions.

Batohi alleged that Chauke made the decision to prosecute Booysen, a decision she claims was outside of his mandate and jurisdiction as the Johannesburg prosecutions head.

ALSO READ:

• NPA's Batohi points out signs of alleged questionable conduct by Chauke
• Nkabinde Inquiry presses Batohi to back her allegations against Chauke

However, the inquiry's chair, retired Justice Bess Nkabinde, questioned this claim. Nkabinde highlighted that the team Chauke led included prosecutors from other provinces, suggesting his role might have been limited:

"How then do we suggest that Advocate Chauke could make a prosecutorial decision when he is merely a coordinator?"

Batohi countered this by referencing an affidavit made by former acting NPA head Nomgcobo Jiba. According to Batohi, Jiba's affidavit suggests Chauke’s role transcended that of a mere coordinator.

"Advocate Jiba’s view was that he was not merely a coordinator, that he was a de facto DPP, the DPP in charge."

Chauke's legal team maintains that while he led the team of prosecutors, he did not make the ultimate decision to prosecute Booysen.