Abstract
Established in 1998, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) immediately had to deal with escalating levels of serious crime. Through a variety of innovations, including prosecution-driven investigations popularised by the ‘Scorpions’, specialised career paths for prosecutors, a focus on performance measurement, and improved conditions of service, the NPA quickly became an employer of choice for a new generation of law graduates. Over the last 16 years, the NPA’s specialised units have performed well. However, the NPA’s performance at the level of the lower courts – where the vast majority of prosecutions occur – has been mixed. With the appointment of its sixth head or acting head in late 2013, the NPA has been burdened with inconsistent – and at times, poor and unsuitable – leadership. Relatedly, political interference and the politicisation of the NPA have seriously undermined a once promising institution, negatively affecting staff morale and performance and sapping public confidence in the NPA. The future of the NPA as an institution that exercises its functions without fear, favour or prejudice, as mandated by the Constitution, hangs in the balance.
Highlights
It is necessary to provide some background to the debate, as the arguably ambiguous constitutional provisions dealing with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) would come back to haunt the organisation as it experienced, and, at times, succumbed to, political interference.[4]
The African National Congress (ANC) successfully pushed for a constitutional provision to establish a national prosecuting authority for South Africa, whose head would be appointed by the president.[10]
The new organisation set up the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO) with its multi-disciplinary, prosecution-driven approach to investigations, and established specialised units in the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP)
Summary
The establishment of the NPA was itself contentious.[2]. From the beginning of negotiations in the early 1990s about South Africa’s future political dispensation, control over criminal prosecutions and, related, the relationship between a new prosecution service and the political executive were contested.[3]. In terms of the Act, the authority to institute prosecutions became the sole responsibility of the attorneys-general and their delegates, free of ministerial interference.[8] Post-1994 the African National Congress (ANC), as ruling party, viewed the 1992 Act with suspicion It regarded the Act as a political ploy by the outgoing National Party government to entrench the position of the attorneysgeneral, who were representative of the old order.[9]. Well regarded across the political spectrum and considered a hard worker and consensus-builder On assuming his post in mid-1998 – initially with no staff or even a national office – Ngcuka faced three fundamental challenges:[18] winning the respect and allegiance of senior prosecutors, many of whom had been appointed during the apartheid era and who had opposed the creation of a centralised prosecution service; raising morale and productivity among junior prosecutors; and building public confidence in the new prosecuting authority.[19]. The NPA responded to these challenges in a variety of ways
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
