Weekend Argus (Saturday Edition)
NPA advocates fired
President adheres to inquiry’s finding that Jiba and Mrwebi are not fit for office
THE National Prosecuting Authority yesterday said President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to axe beleaguered senior advocates Nomgcobo Jiba and Lawrence Mrwebi had ended months of uncertainty and negativity that had weighed heavily on its credibility and reputation.
Spokesperson Bulelwa Makeke said the decision would set a new path for the NPA and it came at an important time for South Africa as the country yearned for accountability and a revived commitment to the rule of law.
Yesterday, Ramaphosa ended months of speculation on the pair’s future as he showed them the door, ending a long-running saga.
Jiba and Mrwebi had been on suspension since October 2018 when Ramaphosa opted to institute an inquiry, headed by retired Constitutional Court Justice Yvonne Mokgoro, to investigate their fitness to hold office. In her report, Judge Mokgoro recommended they be sacked.
“As the Mokgoro report reminds us, it is imperative that the NPA performs its critical role independently, in accordance with the law and the spirit of the constitution.
“Anything less weakens the rule of law and ultimately undermines the social contract that binds South Africans together.
“The report decisively highlights the guiding principles that all prosecutors, regardless of rank or title, are expected to uphold,” said Makeke.
She added that once the decision was confirmed by Parliament, it would enable National Director of Public Prosecutions Shamila Batohi to proceed with her commitment to rebuild the leadership.
It will also match her vision of an institution which seeks justice again and “where all South Africans have confidence in the integrity and capacity of the NPA to deliver on its constitutional mandate”.
A statement by the Presidency yesterday said that the Mokgoro inquiry had concluded its report with the observation that NPA officials were required to be completely devoted to the rule of law without fail, as the country depended on it.
“As the sole entity constitutionally mandated to prosecute on behalf of the state in the face of the scourge of crime, the confidence that the public enjoys in the NPA is what prevents individuals from taking the law into their own hands.
“This confidence underpins the social contract. It lies in the belief that the state can offer protection where laws are not respected,” read the statement.
Responding to questions by Independent Media yesterday, following Ramaphosa’s decision, Mrwebi’s lawyer Amos Vilakazi said his client was still considering his options “at this stage”.
In his submissions to Ramaphosa, dated April 18, Mrwebi said he had felt disappointment at the outcome of the inquiry and its recommendations regarding his position.
“In my view and that of my legal team, the panel failed to meaningfully consider and deal with the evidence that was submitted during the actual hearing portion of the enquiry.
“I personally gave evidence, much of which was not challenged at all by the evidence leaders, yet this fact does not appear to have been appreciated and incorporated into the report of the Mokgoro inquiry,” Mrwebi said.
He added that the inquiry had, without any evidence, “accepted the narrative that had been played out by the DA and other parties” that his actions in deciding to provisionally withdraw the fraud charges against Richard Mdluli.
When asked if the context of Mrwebi’s submissions to Ramaphosa meant that he believed to have a strong argument against the decision, Vilakazi said: “It’s best not to speculate.
“When he has obtained advice and decides on his next move I am sure this will come into the public domain. At this point he makes no public announcement.”
Jiba, in written submissions to Ramaphosa, said that evidence placed before the inquiry had been circumstantial at best as “not all witnesses who deposed to affidavits or sworn statements testified”.
She added that despite several deponents either not being called to testify or refusing to testify their affidavits were admitted into evidence despite their evidence being contested and that uncorroborated media reports had been admitted into evidence.
Attempts to get hold of Jiba’s lawyer were unsuccessful and he did not respond to questions sent to him via text message.