Lawyer acts to stop NDPP selection process
The process to advise on the appointment of the next NPA head has been placed in limbo following an urgent Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) bid by attorney Barnabas Xulu to halt the process.
This development, reports News24, comes just weeks before incumbent Shamila Batohi’s retirement this month.
Xulu – known for his ‘death by affidavit’ approach to law – had earlier penned a 99-page objection delivered to the advisory panel appointed by President Cyril Ramaphosa to review and recommend candidates to fill the top job vacancy that will be left with Shamila Batohi’s imminent departure.
The Daily Maverick reports that the one-time founder of the Jacob Zuma Foundation accused the panel of being ‘biased in favour’ of former Investigating Directorate head, Advocate Hermione Cronje. He charged that she had not been ‘made to answer publicly’, as was the case with other candidates who were interviewed. He also claimed this demonstrated that not all candidates had been treated equally and that the process had therefore been unfair and needed to be set aside.
In the application, Xulu asked the court to interdict Ramaphosa from making the appointment. This pending the outcome of a bid to review and set aside the report and recommendations of the advisory panel established to assist with the selection process.
Xulu’s application centred on the panel’s handling of B Xulu & Partners Incorporated’s objection to Cronje’s candidacy.
‘The nub of this application is that the failure by the advisory panel to have our objection properly considered and transparently addressed by the (panel) is a gross irregularity that renders the interview process reviewable,’ stated Xulu in the papers.
The objection was submitted by Xulu’s firm on 4 December 2025 and hinged on allegations that Cronje had unlawfully shared confidential information with external parties during her previous stint with the NPA.
Xulu stressed that in acknowledging receipt, the panel’s secretariat had given its assurances that B Xulu & Partners Incorporated’s input was ‘invaluable in ensuring transparency and inclusivity’ and that ‘all comments are duly noted and will be considered’.
He argued the panel’s conduct was not in line with this undertaking and that it had failed to ensure transparency and to properly consider the objection.
The objection relied on emails around the Arnold Bengis case that were exchanged between Cronje and Advocate Naz Bawa SC in March 2020.
News24 says Xulu focused on one email in which Bawa suggested certain questions be asked and added that ‘you may want to tamper with the language, so it seems more internal’.
According to the court papers, Cronje subsequently channelled these questions through official NPA structures, resulting in internal memoranda being generated. Xulu said the information obtained through this process was subsequently disclosed to Bawa and used to launch a rescission application.
‘Put differently, Advocate Bawa unlawfully solicited confidential information of the NPA by, inter alia, improperly causing Advocate Cronje to mislead her colleagues in the NPA on why that information was needed.’
Xulu argued that the allegations were serious, substantiated and directly relevant to Cronje’s fitness for office, accusing her of having acted outside her delegated authority, unlawfully transmitting internal NPA information to unauthorised external parties, and causing colleagues to provide information under false pretences.
However, Cronje was not furnished with the objection ahead of her interview before the advisory panel – which took place on 11 December a – and, as Xulu maintained, was only informed that there were objections against her, without being provided with the substance of the objections.
Xulu charged this was a glaring misstep, with Cronje allowed to respond to her own assumptions rather than to the actual allegations and evidence before the panel.
According to News24, Xulu also alleged that Cronje was given preferential treatment, including being allowed to submit written responses after her interview had concluded – a concession not extended to other candidates.
He said this amounted to a different set of rules being applied in her favour.
‘The differential treatment given to (Cronje) clearly demonstrates that the advisory panel did not treat all candidates equally,’ he said – adamant that this alone rendered the process unfair.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
