Law firm seeks urgent court order to block Ramaphosa from appointing next NDPP

The process to appoint South Africa’s next National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) has been thrown into uncertainty after an urgent court application was filed to halt President Cyril Ramaphosa from finalising the appointment.

The legal challenge, lodged at the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria by B Xulu and Partners Incorporated, seeks to block the planned appointment in January 2026, when current NDPP Shamila Batohi is due to retire, pending a review of the selection process.

At the centre of the legal challenge is the firm’s allegation that the NDPP advisory panel failed to properly consider a formal objection lodged against the candidacy of Advocate Hermione Cronje, a former head of the NPA’s Investigating Directorate.

The firm’s director, Barnabas Xulu, submitted a 99-page objection accusing Cronje of “unlawful information peddling” and allegedly sharing confidential state information with external parties during her tenure at the Investigating Directorate in 2020.

Xulu argues that the advisory panel’s failure to address the objection rendered the entire selection process unlawful, biased and procedurally unfair, and is seeking an order compelling the panel to scrap its work and withdraw its report.

The matter is set to be heard in early January. Respondents have been given until December 31, 2025, at 5pm to file their responses.

Ramaphosa has been cited as the first respondent, the advisory panel as the second, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Mmamoloko Kubayi as the third, and Cronje as the fourth respondent.

While Ramaphosa’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya did not respond to requests for comment, Justice and Constitutional Development spokesperson Terrence Manase confirmed that the department has received the application and intends to oppose it.

Manase said the application does not meet the legal threshold for urgency and was, therefore, premature, as the president is still considering the advisory panel’s report.

“The relevant papers are currently under consideration,” Manase said.

“In line with the applicable court rules, the department intends to file a Notice to Oppose on the basis that the application does not meet the requirements for urgency and is premature, as the president is still considering the report submitted by the advisory panel, which considered all inputs received in respect of all candidates interviewed.”

Attempts to obtain comment from Cronje were unsuccessful. However, in previous remarks reported elsewhere, she defended her professional record, citing a “skills catastrophe” and “levels of dysfunction” within the National Prosecuting Authority at the time, while maintaining that the institution’s problems were “eminently fixable”.

In his affidavit, Xulu accused the advisory panel of lacking transparency and showing bias in favour of Cronje, alleging that she was shielded from public scrutiny during the interview process.

He claimed Cronje was not required to respond publicly to allegations raised against her, unlike other candidates, a move he said was designed to bolster her prospects.

“The nub of this application is that the failure by the advisory panel to have our objection properly considered and transparently addressed by the fourth respondent is a gross irregularity that rendered the interview process reviewable,” the affidavit states.

Xulu further argued that Cronje was subjected to a different set of rules, allowing her to engage directly with the panel even after the interview process had concluded.

He also alleged that the panel failed to interrogate what he described as “obvious credence” to the information-peddling allegations, pointing to statements Cronje allegedly made during the interview that she continued to access NPA information after leaving the institution.

According to Xulu, this amounted to an admission of unlawful conduct, which the panel neglected to probe.

“The failure of the advisory panel to question her on this conduct lends further credence to the thrust of our core allegation of bias and dereliction of duty,” the court papers read.

Meanwhile, IOL has reported that Batohi’s deputy, Advocate Anton du Plessis, has resigned from his post, citing personal and family reasons.

DAILY NEWS