The appointment of Advocate Andy Mothibi as the new National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) has drawn strong and divergent reactions from political parties, with the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) both raising serious concerns about the process and expectations surrounding his tenure.
Advocate Mothibi, who currently heads the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), is set to assume office on 1 February following his appointment by President Cyril Ramaphosa. He will replace outgoing NDPP Advocate Shamila Batohi, whose term comes to an end later this month.
In a strongly worded statement, the MK Party said it viewed Mothibi’s appointment as “pre-orchestrated” and “politically deliberate,” alleging that it formed part of a broader process to place him in a constitutionally strategic position. The party questioned the timing of the appointment, linking it to findings made by Mothibi during his tenure at the SIU regarding alleged corruption at Tembisa Hospital.
The MK Party said the SIU had found prima facie evidence implicating President Ramaphosa’s nephew, Hangwani Maumela, in the scandal and that these findings had been handed over to the National Prosecuting Authority’s Investigating Directorate Against Corruption. According to the party, the President’s decision to appoint Mothibi as NDPP was intended to shield his nephew from possible arrest and prosecution.
“The MK Party firmly believes that this appointment is meant to protect Mr Hangwani Maumela from imminent arrest,” the party said. It called on Advocate Mothibi, once in office, to act “decisively and without delay” to ensure Maumela’s arrest and prosecution in line with the evidence already presented.
The MK Party also reiterated its long-standing view that the President should not have sole discretion in appointing leaders of key constitutional institutions, including the NDPP and Chapter 9 bodies. It argued for broader public participation in such appointments, including consideration of public voting mechanisms.
In addition, the party dismissed the advisory panel process that preceded the appointment as a “smoke screen” and “fruitless and wasteful expenditure,” alleging that it was designed to mislead the public while concealing a predetermined outcome. The MK Party further questioned whether Mothibi’s appointment was intended to exert political pressure on him or represented yet another “sinister” appointment by the Executive.
The Economic Freedom Fighters also responded to the appointment, focusing its criticism on the state of the National Prosecuting Authority under Advocate Batohi. The party said Mothibi takes over an institution that had been “hollowed out” by what it described as failed leadership.
According to the EFF, Batohi’s tenure was characterised by incompetence and indecision, with serious criminal cases routinely withdrawn or struck off the roll, entrenching a culture of impunity. The party said her performance before the Nkabinde Commission exposed a lack of control expected from an NDPP.
While noting Mothibi’s previous role as head of the SIU, the EFF cautioned that this should not be viewed as an endorsement of his appointment. It said his leadership should be judged solely on whether he delivers fair, effective and independent prosecutions.
The EFF also raised concern about the appointment process, arguing that the failure of the interview panel to identify a suitable candidate exposed a legislative gap that grants excessive discretion to the Executive. The party warned that this contributed to what it described as an “executive dictatorship” over key judicial and constitutional appointments.
Both parties agreed that Advocate Mothibi’s tenure would be judged on outcomes rather than assurances. “South Africans want prosecutions, convictions and an end to impunity,” the EFF said, adding that it would assess his performance based on action, not promises.
