Ramaphosa’s NDPP pick fuels debate over transparency
PRESIDENT Cyril Ramaphosa’s appointment of Advocate Andy Mothibi as South Africa’s new National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) has unleashed a storm of criticism over both the choice of candidate and the process that produced him, even as parts of the legal fraternity welcomed the move as a chance to stabilise a beleaguered National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
The decision comes on the back of an already contested selection process that is the subject of an urgent court challenge, and has now drawn fire from opposition party ActionSA and anti-corruption watchdog Corruption Watch, while the Black Lawyers Association (BLA) has publicly endorsed the appointment of the soon‑to‑be former head of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), which has been at the heart of fighting organised crime and corruption.
Against this backdrop of legal and political contestation, the appointment of Mothibi has become a lightning rod for broader concerns about prosecutorial independence, constitutional integrity and public confidence in South Africa’s criminal justice system.
In one of the most scathing political reactions, ActionSA has argued that the problem lay not only with the final outcome, but with the entire framework through which the country’s top prosecutor was chosen.
The party’s criticism began with the shortlist that was placed before the President by the advisory panel. “Considering the uninspiring pool of shortlisted candidates, none of whom were recommended, ActionSA believes this presents an opportunity to seriously reflect on the inadequate framework through which the heads of our prosecuting authority are appointed, a framework that has burdened the NPA with leaders who were simply unfit for office.”
Beyond questions about how the candidates were identified and evaluated, ActionSA raised a practical concern about Mothibi’s time in office, pointing out that he would reach the mandatory retirement age in just two years. “While ActionSA expects that Mothibi’s record at the SIU will translate into reversing the shocking decline of the NPA, a further concern is that he would effectively serve as a caretaker NDPP for only two years before being required to retire.”
The party openly doubted whether such a limited term could bring the deep structural reform the NPA needs. It pointedly asked: “Will such a short tenure be sufficient to meaningfully address the deep-seated dysfunction within the NPA?”
ActionSA also argued that the appointment failed to meet public expectations for sweeping institutional renewal, even if it was legally unimpeachable. “While the President acted within his constitutional authority in appointing Mothibi, ActionSA is concerned that South Africans wanted a new broom to sweep clean but were instead presented with a figure drawn from the existing establishment.”
The party linked the controversy directly to South Africa’s emerging era of coalition politics, in which unilateral presidential decisions on key appointments were seen as increasingly out of step with the political reality. “In the context of coalition governance, such a critical appointment made unilaterally by the President underscores the urgent need for reform, as decisions of this national importance must be subject to broader consultation and stronger scrutiny.”
ActionSA framed Mothibi’s tenure as beginning at a moment of acute national crisis, highlighting that the stakes for the new NDPP could hardly be higher. “From escalating violent crime to rampant corruption, Mothibi assumes leadership of the NPA at a time when there can be zero compromise in throwing the book at criminals. ActionSA believes that the role of the NDPP has never been more critical and will ensure that, to avoid at all costs a repeat of the disastrous leadership of the NPA, Mothibi is held to account at every turn.”
Civil society watchdog Corruption Watch (CW) took a more nuanced position, acknowledging Mothibi’s experience and track record, but sharply criticising the opacity of the final stages of the appointment process.
Mothibi was not among the six candidates shortlisted by the advisory panel for public interviews. For CW, the decision to appoint a candidate who had not been subjected to the same public scrutiny as the others undermined hard‑won gains in transparency. “In the interests of transparency, notes CW, it would… have been preferable for him to be subjected to the same interview process as the other candidates.”
The organisation indicated that it was broadly satisfied with the openness of the initial process, including public interviews with shortlisted candidates. Its concern is that the eventual appointee appears to have bypassed that final layer of scrutiny, even though the position of NDPP carries immense constitutional and political importance.
At the same time, CW did not question Mothibi’s credentials as an anti‑corruption figure. In its statement, the organisation recognised both his experience and his performance as head of the SIU: “While Mothibi was not one of the final six, he does bring a wealth of knowledge and experience, having been at the helm of the SIU since May 2016.
“However, given the mandate of the SIU to investigate maladministration, malpractice, and corruption within state institutions and the private sector by way of proclamations issued by the president, Mothibi has fulfilled his role in executing that mandate with vigour and commitment.”
The watchdog stressed that precisely because the office of NDPP was so central to the fight against corruption, its occupant should be appointed through a process that was beyond reproach, and should embody the highest ethical standards and independence.
Lebogang Ramafoko, executive director at CW, underscored the gravity of the role: “The critical role of the NDPP in fighting corruption in the country cannot be overstated. The head of the NPA is at the forefront of seeking accountability in the country, and it is imperative that the appointed candidate undertakes this task without fear or favour, is committed to the highest ethical standards, and is well placed to collaborate with law enforcement stakeholders across the spectrum”.
The seven‑person advisory panel that conducted the public interviews and eventually deemed the shortlisted candidates unsuitable for appointment featured several high‑profile figures from South Africa’s constitutional and legal institutions. These included Andrew Christoffel Nissen, chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission, Auditor‑General Tsakani Maluleke, and BLA president Nkosana Mvundlela.
While that panel’s recommendations and handling of objections are now the subject of litigation, one of its institutional stakeholders, the BLA, chose to publicly embrace Mothibi’s appointment.
The BLA welcomed the appointment of the soon‑to‑be former head of the SIU, describing the unit as one that “has been at the heart of fighting organised crime and corruption”. In its statement, the organisation framed the new NDPP’s mandate squarely in terms of rebuilding leadership and governance within the NPA.
The association called upon the NDPP‑elect to ensure that there was proper leadership, clear accountability, responsible governance, clarity of policy and the dedication of all staff to the cause of the NPA, adding: “We have decried the lack of leadership in the NPA and we hope that his appointment will resolve that issue.”
The BLA also expressed gratitude to the President and articulated its own role as a guardian of constitutional values and institutional integrity. “We take this opportunity to thank the President for his decision, while congratulating Mothibi on his appointment. The BLA is the vanguard of human rights, good governance, proper management and integrity. We shall continue to be available to defend these rights whilst supporting institutions which are empowered to defend the constitution and implement its imperatives.”
The appointment of Mothibi comes in the wake of an urgent court application filed by law firm B Xulu and Partners Incorporated (BXI), which sought to suspend the appointment process and to subject the advisory panel’s work to intensive judicial scrutiny.
BXI’s application, brought in the Pretoria High Court on December 29, 2025, sought an interim interdict to restrain the President from appointing the new NDPP until a review of the advisory panel’s recommendation report was completed and the full record of the selection process was produced.
The firm argued that there were serious procedural flaws and unresolved integrity concerns. According to BXI, its objection “raised serious concerns about ethical judgment and the duty of prosecutorial independence”, based on “evidence that confidential information held within the NPA was shared with external parties”.
The Presidency robustly defended the process. Its spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, insisted this week that the advisory panel acted properly throughout. “The advisory panel followed due process in line with the Constitution and relevant legislation, and all public submissions, including objections, were duly considered before recommendations were finalised.”
Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi, who chaired the panel, echoed this stance when speaking to reporters after the candidate interviews. “All candidates were rigorously assessed, and objections were noted but did not alter the panel’s independent evaluation of suitability based on merit and interviews.”
She emphasised what she described as the procedural integrity of the panel’s work: “We afforded every candidate a fair hearing, and post-interview responses were standard practice to ensure thoroughness.”
BXI, however, contends that the panel mishandled its objection in a way that undermined both fairness and public confidence. BXI argued that the alleged process defects needed to be resolved before any appointment was finalised.
As Xulu put it, the allegations against candidates and the way they are handled should not be brushed aside or dealt with behind closed doors: “These allegations are the kinds of issues that, in the public interest, should be properly furnished to the candidate, interrogated through a fair process, and considered on an even-handed basis before any recommendation is finalised.”
The firm sought urgent interim relief on the grounds that corrective action would be far more difficult once the President had made his choice. “Once an appointment is made, any meaningful remedies may become academic or practically ineffective, and a temporary pause is necessary to avoid a fait accompli.”
For Xulu, the core issue was the public’s legitimate expectation that a process deliberately opened up for public participation would be conducted in a consistently fair manner. He argued that the President’s initiation of a public process and the decision to hold televised interviews “create a legitimate expectation that objections would be handled in a procedurally fair manner and that the same standards would apply to all shortlisted candidates”.
In court filings, Xulu placed these concerns firmly in the context of South Africa’s constitutional design, which demanded not only that the NDPP be independent, but that the public see and trust that independence. “South Africa’s constitutional design requires that the NDPP enjoy unquestioned independence and public trust. Where credible process defects and unresolved integrity concerns are placed on the record, the responsible course is not to rush to finality but to correct the process, disclose the record, and ensure that the selection is beyond reproach.
“BXI reiterates its commitment to the rule of law and to strengthening public confidence in the NPA, and submits that a fair, transparent and equal process is in the interest of not only the President, the successful candidate, and the NPA, but also the South African public,” Xulu said. “Our democracy is strengthened when matters of genuine public concern can be raised openly and resolved through lawful institutions, without fear, favour or prejudice.”
Taken together, the political objections raised by ActionSA, the transparency concerns highlighted by Corruption Watch, the legal challenge mounted by B Xulu and Partners, and the supportive but conditional endorsement from the BLA paint a picture of an NDPP who steps into office with both an urgent mandate and a contested inheritance.