Last year, the NPA declined to prosecute the president in connection with the Phala Phala farm scandal.
A review of the decision not to prosecute President Cyril Ramaphosa in connection with the Phala Phala farm burglary remains under consideration, according to Outgoing National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Shamila Batohi.
Batohi appeared before Parliament’s ad hoc committee at the Good Hope Chamber in Cape Town on Tuesday.
The inquiry is investigating claims of criminal infiltration, corruption, and political interference within South Africa’s justice system.
Batohi defends Idac’s arrest of Crime Intelligence officials
Batohi defended the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) — a unit within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) — for its decision to arrest Dumisani Khumalo, the head of the Crime Intelligence division within the South African Police Service (Saps).
Khumalo and six Crime Intelligence officials were arrested in June on charges including fraud, forgery, and defeating the ends of justice.
They were released on bail amounts ranging from R10 000 to R20 000 and are expected to appear in court again on 13 February 2026.
The charges relate to alleged irregularities in the vetting and appointment process of Brigadier Dineo Mokwele, a senior Crime Intelligence official.
The case was referred to Idac following a referral by National Coloured Congress (NCC) MP Fadiel Adams in November 2024.
Batohi stated that she had received “high-level” briefings before the arrests were carried out.
ALSO READ: ‘She is dishonest’: Saps Crime Intelligence official denied security clearance over past conviction
She explained that Idac follows internal procedures to assess evidence before arrests, but said she was not directly involved in those stages.
“I’m not involved in those processes, but of course, the start of the processes is the referral by one of the honourable members of this House.
“But after that, I am not aware of the precise nature of those processes, except I do know there is a preliminary investigation and potentially an investigation that will be authorised,” Batohi said.
The NDPP added that if Khumalo or his co-accused believe their arrests were procedurally flawed, they can make formal representations to her office.
She further emphasised that Idac’s primary responsibility is to investigate criminal conduct.
“The other side of it is the legality.”
‘Determining factor’
ANC MP Thokozile Sokanyile questioned the “speed at which things were done” in Khumalo’s case, pointing out delays in other prosecutions.
In response, Batohi said the NPA often faces criticism regardless of how quickly it acts.
“We get criticised when we act with speed, and we get criticised when we don’t act with speed,” she remarked.
READ MORE: Madlanga commission: Crime Intelligence official allegedly demanded R2.5m from Cat Matlala
She explained that the pace of investigations depends largely on the availability and strength of evidence.
“That is the determining factor. The more complicated the matter, the harder it is to get the evidence, [so] it will take longer.”
Sokanyile remarked that “people out there” were speculating that the rapid action was linked to internal factions within Crime Intelligence and the NPA.
However, Batohi dismissed that view, insisting that Idac only acted because the case had been formally referred.
“Someone brought the case to them. If that did not happen, Idac would have not been involved in that case.”
On political interference
Earlier in the session, Sokanyile pointed out that Batohi had previously stated she had never experienced improper political interference from Cabinet since her appointment in 2019.
The ANC MP asked what would qualify as such interference.
Batohi responded that it would involve a situation where a government official sought to influence prosecutorial decisions.
“Or to prosecute people who should not be prosecuted for political reasons,” she said.
“I never experienced that ever, and I don’t know if, as a country, we appreciate how important this is, the fact that we have an executive that does not interfere in the work of the prosecuting authority.”
Phala Phala prosecution decision
Batohi was also questioned about the Phala Phala farm burglary, in which suspects allegedly broke into Ramaphosa’s game farm in February 2020 and stole $580 000 hidden inside a couch.
Namibian nationals Imanuwela David, Froliana Joseph, and her brother Ndilinasho David Joseph are currently standing trial for the burglary.
The NPA has confirmed that Ramaphosa will not testify in the matter.
READ MORE: Phala Phala trial: Witness details why he hid cash in Ramaphosa’s couch
In October last year, Limpopo Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Advocate Mukhali Ivy Thenga decided not to prosecute Ramaphosa or any other individuals linked to the incident.
This decision followed a thorough investigation by the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation (DPCI), also known as the Hawks, which found insufficient evidence to support a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Batohi assures Phala Phala review ‘will be dealt with’
MK Party MP Vusi Shongwe challenged Batohi during Tuesday’s proceedings, saying she was widely seen as “Mr Cyril Ramaphosa’s protector”.
“Not that I’m aware of,” she replied.
When Shongwe pressed her on why the president had not been charged, Batohi explained that two separate matters were involved — one concerning the theft of the money, which is before the court, and another relating to the possession of US dollars.
She stated that a decision on the undeclared foreign currency issue had not yet been finalised.
“This matter is with the DPP; I think it’s Limpopo. The file is with the specialised commercial crimes unit in the head office, and they are going to get a panel to sit on this matter to consider it, but there’s no decision,” Batohi said.
EFF leader Julius Malema, however, disputed this, asserting that a decision had already been taken not to prosecute and that Idac head Andrea Johnson had confirmed the matter was on her desk.
“The head of Idac told us that the matter is with her because there were people who took that matter on review.
“The question is, why is she unable to prosecute on that matter? Even when Limpopo [DPP] declined, there was a review that was brought to her attention,” he said.
Batohi denied that the Phala Phala file was with her office, explaining that the review relates to the Limpopo DPP’s decision to decline prosecution.
“I would have received reports from the DPP, but certainly not from the Hawks relating to this matter. I’m not dealing with the review process. There’s nothing on my desk for my consideration.”
She added that due process must be observed.
“Of course, anybody is entitled to ask that the national director review this matter.”
Batohi emphasised that the review application was being managed by the Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit (SCCU).
“That matter will be dealt with.”
