The search is on for the new national director of public prosecutions (NDPP), with incumbent Shamila Batohi due to retire in January 2026 upon turning 65. This will mark the first time since 1998, when the National Prosecuting Authority was established, that an NDPP has completed their term without being prematurely removed or forced to step down – because although Batohi was appointed in February 2019, the mandated retirement age supersedes the 10-year term.
The Department of Justice’s (DoJ) advisory panel for the selection of the new NDPP, chaired by justice and constitutional development minister Mmamoloko Kubayi, met on 25 November 2025 to finalise the screening of nominated candidates for the position, and two days later published a shortlist of six candidates.
Despite President Cyril Ramaphosa’s promises of transparency, the panel neglected to publish the CVs of the six hopefuls.
“The President has mandated the panel to call for nominations through an open and transparent manner, conduct shortlisting, interviews, ensure vetting of suitable candidates, and submit the names of three suitable candidates with a detailed report on suitability of the individuals to the President for consideration.”
Furthermore, the public was given just eight days to submit their feedback on the candidates, with a deadline of 5 December.
Pressure applied
Disappointed with this development, Corruption Watch (CW) on Friday 28 November sent an urgent letter to Kubayi, pointing out that the absence of CVs would “severely hamper meaningful public participation and commentary”, including the aforementioned vetting.
In the same letter we reminded the panel of the Constitutional Court’s recent judgment in our favour, in the matter of Corruption Watch v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others relating to the 2022 appointment of members of the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE). We had argued that the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities did not allow for meaning public participation as in this case too, there was no provision of candidates’ CVs – just a link leading to an Excel spreadsheet containing their full names and qualifications, but no further details.
The committee also stipulated a very limited time within which the public was allowed to respond.
The court upheld South Africa’s constitutional principle of public participation in democratic processes, finding that the National Assembly failed to comply with its constitutional obligation to facilitate reasonable public involvement, and instructed the NA to rerun the process.
With a Constitutional Court judgment supporting us, we requested that the NDPP panel speedily publish the CVs of candidates, and that the deadline for public submissions be extended to 9 December.
The DoJ replied to us on 1 December, agreeing to publish the CVs – which it has done – but unwilling to extend the deadline by another four days to make up for the four days that have already gone by without access to the CVs.
“We are pleased to note that the Minister has, after our letter, provided members of the public ‘access to sufficient information about the subject matter to enable meaningful and informed deliberation’,” commented CW attorney Nkululeko Conco.
“The public will have four days to scrutinise the CVs once they are uploaded and for that reason I think the closing date of Friday, 05 December, 2025, is still reasonable,” wrote Kubayi in the DoJ’s reply.
CW does not agree. “The period of four days to consider the CVs and make comment does not foster meaningful public involvement in our participatory democracy,” said Conco. “The severely truncated timeframes, owing yet again to a self-created urgency, are unreasonable and suggest a lack of political will in ensuring meaningful and transparent public participation for a critical leadership appointment, in a time when the National Prosecuting Authority appears crippled by capacity constraints.”
Failure to adhere to Constitution
In the CGE matter, we had argued that:
- There was no reasonable opportunity to participate in the recommendation process due to the limited access to relevant information. In this regard, the court held that “members of the public and organs of civil society must have access to sufficient information about the subject matter to enable meaningful and informed deliberation”.
- The committee’s interpretation and application of the provisions of the Protection of Personal Information Act was incorrect and failed to balance the right to privacy against other rights, particularly the right of access to information. Having considered the arguments, the court held that “the constitutional obligation to provide sufficient information to facilitate public involvement is plainly the type of public law duty which would entitle the portfolio committee to publish the personal information of the candidates”.
- The committee’s self-imposed urgency did not justify the unreasonably shortened timeframes for the public participation process. In this regard the court held that “in light of the restricted information made available, the limited period operated as a further impediment to effective and meaningful public involvement”.
- The format of submissions unnecessarily curtailed members of the public and interested organisations’ ability to meaningfully participate and provide adequate comment on candidates. The court recognised the benefits of digital technology and still held that “the mechanisms adopted by the portfolio committee to facilitate public involvement in the appointment of commissioners to the CGE failed to allow for effective public participation”.
