Matthew Chaskalson and Paul Pretorius were recruited without security clearance certificates first being secured, has raised concerns.
The National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) Investigating Directorate (ID) is sending a worrying message by refusing to disclose important information relating to the appointment of two senior advocates as “consultants”.
The fact that Paul Pretorius and Matthew Chaskalson were recruited without security clearance certificates first being secured, has raised concerns. Especially now that they may be exposed to crucial information when advising the ID on prosecuting cases relating to the Zondo Commission of Inquiry, coincidentally, where they were also evidence leaders.
It’s not enough for NPA boss Shamila Batohi to blame another government department, the State Security Agency for apparently delaying their vetting.
Surely there are enough capable women and men within the body who could perform the same duties
It then raises the question: what was the rush in appointing Chaskalson and Pretorius without first obtaining all the necessary documentation?
Already there are allegations that these appointments are part of an attempt to capture the NPA.
And the implications of such a decision could be disastrous and potentially damage the ID’s reputation if the issue of security clearance is not resolved.
The entity is also aggravating matters by not coming clean on how much is the taxpayer paying for the services of the two advocates. It’s public money we are talking about here.
The sooner the ID heeds the call to disclose all relevant details relating to the appointments, the better for its image. Already parties like the EFF have made such a demand.
“This ... unit should not be a money-making scheme for white lawyers, as was the case with the Zondo Commission. The EFF states categorically that our objection to the appointments , as well as to the blind raid by Shamila Batohi on the evidence held by the Justice Department, does not constitute any belief that those implicated in the state capture commission report are innocent or guilty.”
The secrecy around the funding involved in appointing the two advocates does not bode well for an entity entrusted with prosecuting some of the most high-profile cases involving corruption. If left unanswered, it will heighten the suspicion that not everything was above board.
Cape Times