The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on Wednesday sought to clarify recent statements made by acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Mokotedi Mpshe.
Mpshe’s statements during an interview with City Press newspaper drew sharp criticism from ANC general secretary Gwede Mantashe, who claimed the NPA ”has cast aside all pretence of professionalism or political neutrality”.
”It has come out in the open and has effectively admitted that it is pursuing a political vendetta against [ANC] President [Jacob] Zuma,” Mantashe said.
In a statement on Wednesday, the NPA said Mpshe’s interview was a reflection of his first year since he took over following the suspension of NDPP Vusi Pikoli.
During this interview he recounted some of the key and sometimes difficult matters he had had to deal with in this role.
The broader context of Mpshe’s statements was in the spirit of the NPA’s celebration of its 10th anniversary, where he highlighted the successes and challenges the institution had faced during its first decade of existence.
”Some excerpts of that interview have been selectively quoted in the media, a situation which has opened the statements to various interpretations that were not inherent in the message being conveyed,”
the NPA said.
”He referred to the climate within which the NPA operated as rough. He stated that a rough climate existed as NPA decisions were subjected to severe public scrutiny and criticism.
”One form of such criticism was a perception that Mr Jacob Zuma’s case was a political trial and that made it difficult for the NPA to handle.
”In any event, this is one of the issues that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) next week may have to adjudicate on,” the NPA said.
Mpshe had also expressed an opinion on the ”incorrectness” of Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Chris Nicholson’s judgement in Zuma’s case.
It was a matter of public record that the NPA successfully applied for leave to appeal against this judgement, based on its conviction that it was legally flawed.
Appealing a case because one believed it was incorrect, and providing the basis for one’s contestation was within the framework of the law and this was a right afforded all citizens, including the NPA.
Once the highest court had pronounced on the matter, the NPA and the public would have to abide by that decision, irrespective of the outcome.
”That is the rule of law, and the NPA fully respects it,” the NPA said. – Sapa