[15 April 2026] Batohi, former NDPP, accepts political interference took place before her term in office

On 15 April 2026, at the TRC Cases Inquiry (also known as a Khampepe Commission of Inquiry), Shamila Batohi, former National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), confirmed that in the Rodrigues case (heard in 2019), the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) admitted that it had been subjected to political interference in respect of the TRC cases. Batohi confirmed that the time of her leaving office at the end of January 2026, the NPA’s position in respect of this political interference had not changed.

Joao Rodrigues was a former Security Branch officer who applied for a stay in proceedings after he had been criminally charged with the murder of Ahmed Timol in 2018.

In the Rodrigues stay of prosecution proceedings, the NPA did not only not dispute the evidence of political interference presented by Imtiaz Cajee, the nephew of Ahmed Timol, but admitted in an affidavit by filed Dr TP Pretorius SC that the entity had been subject to such interference in respect of the TRC cases. The NPA stated that it should not be held responsible for the interference, since it was imposed on the organisation by the Executive. See the excerpts below.

In its judgment, the full court in Rodrigues v NDPP & Ors [2019] 3 All SA 962 (GJ) dismissed the application for a stay of prosecution and concluded that:

“[21] What occurred in the period from about 2003 and 2017 was that all investigations into TRC cases and other crimes of the past were stopped as a result of an executive decision taken at a high level that purported to interfere with the National Prosecuting Authority’s prosecutorial decision making.”

The Court expressed its dismay at the political interference and dismissed the NPA’s attempt to portray itself as a victim and directed that those complicit should be brought to the NDPP’s attention for action. It also directed that the Executive and NPA provide a public assurance that such interference will never occur again and called on them to specifically indicate what measures will be put in place to prevent such recurrence.  The full bench rejected the attempt of the NPA to paint itself as a victim and called for an investigation:

“[64] Of course, it may well be asked, what was the NPA required to do in the face of high-level political interference? Rather than simply succumb to it, it was open and incumbent upon the NPA to have brought this interference into the open. Victims of those crimes where investigation and prosecution was being suppressed certainly had the right to know what was happening and why such cases were not being prosecuted. Society as a whole had an ongoing interest in the work of the TRC and the follow-up that the government had committed itself to. Parliament, which ultimately represents the legislative authority of the state, had a right to know when the letter and spirit of legislation that it had passed was being deliberately undermined. None of this occurred and the NPA must accordingly accept the moral and legal consequences of this most serious omission and dereliction of duty on its part.”

See the excerpts from the NPA affidavit in the Rodrigues case (as quoted in the Calata affidavit before the Khampepe Commission of Inquiry): 

“I strongly deny that the first respondent [NPA] is responsible for the delays upon which the fourth respondent [Cajee] seeks to rely. Even on the evidence upon which the fourth respondent relies, it is clear that the prosecution was delayed as a result of political interference by others. (Bold added) (para 2.3)

When regard is had to the nature of the crime, it should not be surprising that the government of the day may have taken steps to find a political solution to the political murders which were perpetrated by agents of the pre-1994 government. It is irrelevant as to what one calls such steps. The fourth respondent calls them political interference with the National Prosecuting Authority. (Bold added) (para 2.10).

The first respondent does not deny that the executive branch of the State took what one can describe as political steps to manage the conduct of criminal investigations and possible prosecution of the perpetrators of the political murders such as that of Mr. Timol. When regard is had to what advocates Pikoli, Ackermann and Macadam say in their affidavits confirming political interference with the first respondent’s prosecutorial decision-making processes, it is clear that it is in fact not the first respondent who stalled the investigations and prosecution of cases such as the present. For this reason, no purpose would be served by throwing stones at the first respondent.  (Bold added) (para 2.11).

When regard is had to what the fourth respondent says in paragraph 84, the only conclusion to arrive at is that the delay in prosecuting the applicant was not as a result of the first respondent’s own doing or its malice – it was as a result of the political interference and the “severe political constraints” to which the first respondent was subjected. (Bold added) (para 2.12).

[Cajee] relies on certain incidents which he says constitute evidence of political interference. None of these incidents were created by the first respondent. On fourth respondent’s own version, “the NPA and its officials dealing with my uncle’s case … became subjected to severe political constraints …” There is no doubt that the National Prosecuting Authority and its officials could not have subjected themselves to the “severe political constraints” referred to by the fourth respondent.   (Bold added) (para 2.13).

It is important that I highlight some of the contents of Pikoli’s affidavit which clearly indicate that the [NDPP] and its officials were indeed, as alleged by fourth respondent, subjected to severe political constraints as a result of which, on [Cajee’s] version, it was “extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to carry out their responsibilities under law.” (Emphasis added) (para 2.21).

The contents of both Pikoli and Ackermann’s affidavits give this Court an opportunity to reaffirm the constitutional independence of the National Prosecuting Authority of this country and send a clear message that political office bearers should stop interfering with prosecutorial decisions unless otherwise authorized to do so by law. (Bold added) (para 2.28).

What one sees in Pikoli and Ackermann’s affidavits is that the political interference and political pressure brought to bear upon the highest office of the National Prosecuting Authority was far from being authorized by law. This being the case, there can be no rational basis to use such unlawful political interference and political pressure to justify the permanent stay of criminal prosecution which the applicant seeks in this application. (Bold added) (para 2.29).

I agree with what the fourth respondent says in paragraph 88 of his answering affidavit that the manipulation of the criminal justice system to protect individuals from criminal prosecution serves an ulterior and illegal purpose and that it constitutes bad faith, it is irrational, it interferes with the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority and amounts to a gross subversion of the rule of law. This, however, does not justify the granting of the permanent stay of criminal prosecution which the applicant seeks in this application. (para 2.30).

When regard is had to the contents of Chris MacAdam’s affidavit, it is clear that he did all he could under the political environment which prevailed at the time which, as the fourth respondent himself has indicated in his answering affidavit, was clearly not in favour of prosecuting cases such as the present. For this reason, the insinuation against Chris MacAdam is wholly misplaced. (Bold added) (para 2.38).”

Background on Joao Rodrigues

Rodrigues applied for the stay in proceedings after he was criminally charged with the murder of Ahmed Timol, a political activist who died after he was pushed out of the 10th floor window at the Security Branch Headquarters, John Vorster Square in 1971. Rodrigues argued that the delays in the case interfered with his right to a fair trial. Representatives of the Timol family contended that the delays in the post-apartheid era were due to political interference. Although the stay in proceedings was denied, Rodrigues died before he could be brought to justice.