‘It’s an open secret the NPA came with lowest morale’
Abrahams says applications aimed at removing Jiba from the NPA can be traced to officials around Nxasana.
JOHANNESBURG - National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Head Advocate Shaun Abrahams says it's an open secret that when he inherited the leadership of the institution, it had the lowest morale in its history.
He also says that while at first blush the case against his deputy, Advocate Nomgcobo Jiba, may appear compelling, in fact the criminal proceedings and inquiry into her conduct were initiated by people with an agenda against her.
The comments are made in legal documents submitted last week in which he responds to a bid by the Democratic Alliance (DA) to force President Jacob Zuma to suspend her.
In his documents, Abrahams says when he took office he realised it could not be business as usual and he had to turn the dreadful situation around.
It's because of that that he re-structured part of the NPA and assigned Jiba to manage prosecutorial services.
Abrahams says two other possible candidates had never prosecuted a case in their careers; while she had years of prosecutorial experience.
He also says fraud and perjury charges laid against her were not to see that justice is done but part of vendetta against her by former NPA Head Mxolisi Nxasana.
The NPA head says the DA's whole application before a High Court should be dismissed because only the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction there.
HOFMEYER DOING THE BIDDING FOR NXASANA
At the same time, Abrahams says it has now been confirmed that one of his deputies, Advocate Willie Hofmeyr had been doing the bidding for Nxasana when he started investigating Jiba.
He also says that applications aimed at removing Jiba from the NPA can be traced to officials around Nxasana, who had been long been at loggerheads with her.
In his affidavit the NPA head says that while Jiba was strongly criticised by judges in three separate rulings, those findings were manipulated by people who had ulterior motives who were trying to get rid of her.
He also says that as the General Council of the Bar is applying to have her removed from the roll of advocates, this case should be put on hold because it would be undesirable to have two courts pronouncing differently on the same issues of law or fact.
He says that this could be particularly important in this case because it relates to the exercise of presidential powers.