Nkabinde Inquiry faces delay over legal counsel for Advocate Batohi
The Nkabinde Inquiry, which is assessing the fitness of Advocate Andrew Chauke to hold office, has been thrown into further delay as NDPP Advocate Shamila Batohi refuses to continue her testimony without securing legal counsel.
The matter, which has been a point of contention since December 2025, was discussed again on January 26, 2026, when Advocate David Mohlomonyane SC, representing the evidence leaders, confirmed that Batohi’s position remains unchanged.
According to Mohlomonyane, Batohi had interrupted her testimony in December, citing the need for legal advice. Despite repeated requests, she has yet to receive the counsel she deems necessary.
“On the 23rd of January 2026, the evidence leaders received a letter from Advocate Batohi informing us that the position as it pertained on the 15th of December 2025 is still the same,” Mohlomonyane said.
“She has not yet received the legal counsel which she sought.”
Batohi, who had initially asked the Office of the State Attorney for both senior and junior counsel, was advised to seek the Minister of Justice’s intervention.
In early January 2026, the Minister recommended that Batohi utilise the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) legal team, led by Advocate Garth Hulley SC and Advocate Leketo.
However, Batohi has expressed dissatisfaction with this arrangement, claiming that she expected a different form of legal support.
In her communication to the inquiry, Batohi emphasised that she would not continue with her evidence until she is granted the legal counsel she requested.
“Advocate Batohi says there was no response from the panel, and therefore, she will not be able to continue with her evidence until and unless she receives legal counsel,” Mohlomonyane stated.
Justice Bess Nkabinde, who is overseeing the inquiry, sought clarification on the Minister’s role in the matter.
Mohlomonyane confirmed that Batohi had appealed the decision to deny her legal counsel, which led to the Minister’s involvement.
Meanwhile, concerns arose regarding Batohi’s awareness of the responses from Advocate Chauke’s legal team, particularly around the issue of her legal representation.
Mohlomonyane clarified that Batohi had not been formally or informally informed of the responses.
Advocate Themba Skosana, speaking on behalf of the evidence leaders, made it clear that the leaders were not representing Batohi nor the NPA, but were focused on the broader procedural issues at hand.
He added that Batohi’s suspension from cross-examination was tied to her demand for legal counsel. “We know that there was a request, during the cross-examination of Advocate Batohi, that such cross-examination be suspended until she obtains legal advice,” Skosana said.
One of the key issues in the dispute involves the Legal Practice Council (LPC) Code of Conduct, specifically Rule 55.5, which restricts legal practitioners from consulting with a witness who is under cross-examination.
Skosana argued that the rule should not apply to legal practitioners who have not yet called a witness to testify.
However, Justice Nkabinde raised concerns about the appropriateness of such legal arguments being made without a formal application before the panel.
“You are now making a submission that, as evidence leaders, you take issues with the point that has been raised,” Nkabinde pointed out. “There is no pending application before us with a specific relief sought so that we can make a ruling or an order.”
Skosana acknowledged the concern but reiterated that he was merely explaining the evidence leaders’ stance on the matter.
Despite this, Nkabinde stressed that procedural matters must be addressed through formal applications, not through informal submissions based on ongoing correspondence.
hope.ntanzi@iol.co.za
IOL Politics