The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has addressed renewed scrutiny over its management of complex prosecutions following the removal of several high-profile matters from court rolls, including the extortion case against taxi boss Joe ‘Ferrari’ Sibanyoni and the case involving Johannesburg Development Agency CEO Themba Mathibe.
Bulelwa Makeke, the NPA’s Head of Communication, explained the authority’s case management framework, emphasizing that investigations are primarily conducted by police before dockets are submitted to prosecutors for assessment. Prosecutors then determine whether to proceed based on whether there is a reasonable prospect of success and whether the burden of proof can be met.
“Cases are enrolled and people appear in court. What happens after that depends on whether there is a conviction or an acquittal,” Makeke stated, noting that constitutional requirements mandate that arrested individuals appear before a court within 48 hours, even when investigations remain ongoing.
Makeke clarified that cases are rarely 100% complete at enrollment. “In almost 100% of cases, they will not be 100% ready by the time you enroll them. There is space to actually have those investigations still happen,” she said, citing examples such as new information emerging from accused persons or the need for forensic analysis.
Regarding the Mathibe matter, which was struck from the roll after prosecutors requested additional time to download information from devices, Makeke emphasized that case management falls under the judicial officer’s authority. “If there are delays where you expect a matter to be ready to proceed and then it’s not because something else has come up, it’s a simple and normal procedure of court that the judicial officer can take the matter off the roll. No one is at fault. It’s just how things happen.”
On prosecutorial support structures, Makeke confirmed that prosecutors operate within a hierarchical system with access to senior guidance up to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Addressing the Sibanyoni case, where one prosecutor initially handled the matter before it was reenrolled with a four-prosecutor team, Makeke acknowledged that challenges were identified and addressed internally. “Support is always there for prosecutors. They would know when they need assistance, and there would also be an assessment internally from seniors on how to deal with the matter.”
Makeke also discussed the role of the Investigating Directorate against Corruption (IDC), the NPA unit focused on state capture and high-profile fraud cases. Referencing the reenrolled New Lane alleged investment scam case, she noted that time had allowed prosecutors to address prior complications, particularly around handling large volumes of data. “So much time has passed such that they now have been able to work on all the issues that were still outstanding. The expectation will be for it to just flow from here.”
Addressing broader questions about performance metrics, Makeke clarified that the NPA’s conviction rates reflect outcomes of cases taken to court—not all reported crime. “When we measure performance of prosecutors, it talks to the work that prosecutors actually take to court. You are not measuring performance against the entire crime scenario of the country,” she explained, adding that resource constraints require strategic decisions about which cases to prosecute.
Makeke stressed that this approach aligns with international standards for evaluating prosecutorial performance. “It is an international standard that prosecutors measure their performance on the basis of how well they perform with the cases that they take to court.”
The NPA spokesperson concluded that while public interest in high-profile outcomes is understandable, the authority remains focused on ensuring cases brought forward meet evidentiary thresholds and are managed with appropriate support structures throughout the judicial process.
