What Happened at the Nkabinde Inquiry?
The Nkabinde Inquiry looked into a complaint filed by Shamila Batohi, the former National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), against lawyer Andrew Chauke. Chauke was being examined for his fitness to become the Director of Public Prosecutions for Southern Gauteng.
Batohi’s Testimony and Sudden Exit
Batohi gave evidence between November and December 2025. During a tough cross‑examination by lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi on 15 December 2025, she said she would not return after the lunch break unless she could get independent legal advice. She walked out, stating she needed her own lawyers, not the NPA’s legal team, to feel safe while answering questions.
The Legal Team’s Request
Batohi’s attorneys, Harris Nupen Molebatsi Attorneys (HNM), asked the inquiry panel for two things:
- A declaratory order saying she did not need the panel’s permission to talk to her lawyers.
- If that wasn’t granted, formal permission to consult her legal team during cross‑examination.
They argued that the inquiry touched on her constitutional rights and professional reputation, so an exception to the usual rule was warranted.
Why the Panel Said No
Chairwoman Bess Nkabinde explained that Batohi had not shown that her right to procedural fairness required her to stop the questioning for legal advice. The panel stressed that the “rule of professional conduct”—which stops lawyers from questioning a witness once testimony has started until cross‑examination ends—is sacrosanct. Allowing a break for private advice could let witnesses tailor their answers, undermining the truth‑finding process.
Concerns About State‑Funded Legal Help
The panel also questioned the NDPP’s decision to let Batohi use private lawyers at state expense while she was merely a witness. They warned that this could create an untenable precedent inside the National Prosecuting Authority, encouraging other witnesses to demand similar treatment.
Chauke’s Side of the Story
Andrew Chauke’s legal team described Batohi’s exit as a “flight” and said she came to the inquiry with “unclean hands” because she had already broken professional rules by leaving the stand. They argued that her request for a break was an attempt to avoid tough questioning rather than a genuine need for legal counsel.
Batohi’s Perspective
Batohi maintained that she was only trying to protect her integrity and understand her role in the inquiry. She believed that having independent advice was necessary to face questioning without feeling pressured or misrepresented.
What This Means for Future Inquiries
The Nkabinde panel’s decision reinforces the importance of keeping witness testimony uninterrupted. It sends a clear message that, unless a witness can prove a real risk to their rights, they must stay on the stand and answer questions without private legal interruptions. The ruling also cautions against using state funds for private legal representation of witnesses, highlighting the need to keep procedures fair and consistent for everyone involved.
Conclusion
The Nkabinde Inquiry’s handling of Shamila Batohi’s request shows how delicate the balance is between protecting a witness’s rights and preserving the integrity of the fact‑finding process. By refusing to allow a break for private legal advice, the panel upheld the principle that cross‑examination should continue without interruption, setting a precedent that aims to keep inquiries transparent and trustworthy for all parties.
