Another sign of NPA in disarray
THE dismissal of all 15 disciplinary charges brought by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) against top prosecutor Glynnis Breytenbach is the latest warning sign that SA cannot afford to ignore. The NPA — one of the most important constitutionally mandated institutions supporting our democracy — is in the midst of a multifaceted crisis that needs to be addressed urgently.
The Breytenbach case, which arose after her suspension on dubious charges of misconduct relating to the preparation of a highly politicised criminal case against black empowerment company Imperial Crown Trading, raises deep concerns about political interference in the NPA’s decisionmaking. There have been several other matters that fall into the same category. But a loss of credibility and public confidence due to a rising perception that senior NPA officials operate according to a political agenda is only one of the daunting challenges the organisation faces. There are also signs it is suffering from a shortage of appropriate skills, has promoted people beyond their ability or experience, and is about to hit a brick wall when it comes to financing.
The NPA’s own 2013-14 strategic performance plan warns of looming budget cuts that mean there will be no money for training or to appoint new prosecutors to assist the existing corps, which is struggling under an excessive workload and a serious case backlog. There have been laudable efforts to improve efficiency at an operational level, but the recent rash of high-profile cases that have collapsed or failed to get off the ground — the Andries Tatane and Anene Booysen murder trials and Fidentia fraud case spring to mind — point to either a lack of capacity or incompetence.
Ms Breytenbach was working on a number of high-profile cases at the time of her suspension, specifically the fraud charges against crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli, who has also been accused of pursuing a political agenda in support of President Jacob Zuma. Having her fired on trumped-up charges — some of these related to matters as trivial as contravening the NPA’s internet and e-mail usage — would certainly have made a lot of politically influential people, and their friends and tenderpreneurial business associates, very happy. Indeed, the charges against Mr Mdluli were promptly dropped as soon as Ms Breytenbach was out of the way.
As her defence team pointed out during the disciplinary hearing, the acting head of the NPA, Nomgcobo Jiba, was hardly a disinterested party — before her appointment, Mr Zuma saw fit to use his presidential privilege to expunge the criminal record of her husband, who had been convicted of stealing trust funds. And it should not be forgotten that the only reason the post was vacant was that Mr Zuma’s appointment of Menzi Simelane was overturned by the courts on the basis that it was “irrational”.
Even from a cursory analysis of Mr Zuma’s appointments to senior security posts, it is clear that loyalty to him is a priority, even though their constitutional responsibility is to the state and their obligation is to uphold the rule of law without fear or favour, so independence from the executive is vital.
Ms Breytenbach is a hero for taking the stance she did, and for insisting she wants to take up where she left off, including continuing with the prosecution of Mr Mdluli. But she is up against a prosecutorial and state security establishment that is now thoroughly politicised, so as much as we wish her well in her endeavours, the odds are against her being left alone to do her job, and against Mr Mdluli ever having to answer to a court of law. After all, Mr Zuma has himself managed to avoid having to account for his side of the relationship with convicted fraud Schabir Shaik after having been let off the hook originally through an extremely dubious decision by another acting NPA boss.