The summary is: 1) Nomgcobo Jiba has been removed from her position as Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions (DNDPP) after President Ramaphosa accepted the recommendations of the Morgoro Enquiry to remove her. 2) Jiba disputes the findings of the Enquiry and argues that it failed to properly consider prosecutorial independence and contravened constitutional principles by overturning court findings. 3) Jiba intends to clear her name and ensure her actions were done to advance prosecutorial independence, not undermine it, through legal challenges and engaging with Parliament.

1. MEDIA STATEMENT: JIBA’S RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDENT’S DECISION TO
ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MORGORO ENQUIRY
1. At around 20h18 on Thursday, 26 April 2019, my attorneys of record received an email
from the Honourable President Ramaphosa (“the President”) conveying to me his
decision to accept the recommendations of the Enquiry into my fitness for office to
remove me from office of the DNDPP. I have therefore ceased to be the DNDPP as from
today. As I stated in my opening statement in the Enquiry, I have served my country as a
career prosecutor for a period of 27 years. I have done so to the best of my ability and
training. My appointment was in a way unprecedented and historical because I am the
first black African woman prosecutor to have been appointed to the position of Acting
NDPP and the first career prosecutor with actual prosecutorial experience and the first
prosecutor to have been removed from my position as a DNDPP. The disappointing
outcome of the Enquiry and the decision of the President will never erase my hard-earned
experience, and in the annals of South African prosecutorial history, my true story will
one day be told in better terms.
2. I pleaded with the Enquiry to make recommendations that would strengthen the
independence of the NPA to perform its supreme constitutional functions with industry
and fortitude. I am disappointed by its failure to do so. There are numerous elementary
but gross errors of judgment made by the Enquiry that a review application to the High
Court will demonstrate. For example, it is inimical to prosecutorial independence to
impugn my decision to authorise the prosecution of Colonel Booysen (“Booysen”), in
circumstances where he must answer for the murder of more than twenty (20) black
suspects. I point out the race of the suspects because I know that if the roles were

2. reversed and a black policeman had overseen the murder of over twenty (20) white
suspects, I would be regarded as a heroine for prosecuting such an accused. Whatever the
Enquiry and the President’s conclusions are on my decision (as a prosecutor) regarding
Booysen, there are over twenty families in Cato Manor whose children were gunned
down in police raids that must still be explained to the public through our court system.
The blood of those killed in these raids will continue to seek justice until Booysen takes
the stand to explain his role. As matters stand, and assuming that no interference or
intervention is made, he is due to appear in Court in October 2019 after his attempts to
have the charges withdrawn were dismissed by the High Court.
3. Another elementary issue missed by the Enquiry is that the Supreme Court of Appeal
(“SCA”) found nothing wrong with my role in the prosecution of Booysen. The Enquiry
is not a Court of Law and may not issue a recommendation that contravenes a factual
finding of a Court of Law. That much is clear from sections 165(3), (4) and (5) of the
Constitution. The Enquiry failed to grasp basic constitutional principles governing its
work- more particularly that it is not entitled to overturn the findings of a Court. The
President also failed to respect the order of the SCA in so far as he accepted that I acted
incompetently when I authorised the charging of Booysen. The court order of the SCA is
binding on the President, as it is on the Enquiry, unless overturned on appeal by the
Constitutional Court. The Enquiry, as well as the President, may not interfere with the
findings of a court in contravention of section 165(3) of the Constitution. To do so would
undermine the Judiciary and places a strain on the separation of powers principle.
4. The Enquiry and the President are wrong to impugn my conduct in relation to the cases of
Mdluli and the Spy Tapes. A dispassionate and rigorous review of the evidence will

3. disclose that the SCA was correct when it found (as it did) nothing wrong with my
involvement in those matters: the prosecutorial decision involving Mdluli was taken
before I was appointed as ANDPP and the glaring evidence on the Spy Tapes, as in all
cases, is the affidavit of Advocate Paul Kennedy SC for the NPA which made it clear
what my role was in that case. It is wrong to hold me incompetent for the work of the
NPA which was done under the hand of counsel, in many instances Senior Counsel.
5. I have raised these preliminary legal points to highlight my intention to clear my name
and the legacy of my professional commitment as a prosecutor of over 27 years. The
President conveyed to me that I am disqualified from serving my country in any position
in the Public Service. I can assure the President that I will not be stripped, by executive
stealth and fiat, of my rights routinely accorded to all citizens to serve this great country
in the position of my calling. The President’s decision to declare me a prohibited public
servant will not stand judicial scrutiny because it is self-evidently wrong, amounts to
abuse of executive power, alternatively a failure to properly exercise that power. I stand
by my evidence given to the Enquiry and intend to ensure that my actions were all done
to advance prosecutorial independence and not to undermine them.
6. The Enquiry’s findings have been most unfair to me. I do not accept them as a final
statement on my life and from today, I will dedicate a significant portion of my remaining
life to showing all the black women of South Africa with ambition to became the best in
any field that I was a worthy candidate to be a custodian of prosecutorial independence. I
prayed for my internal peace and received the assurance of God’s grace on this
challenging journey. It is painful and deeply troubling but I have felt the loving
assurance of divine providence.

4. 7. I have consulted with my lawyers, (to whom I am deeply grateful), and have the
assurance of their service in taking the matter forward. For now, and upon the resumption
of the sixth Parliament, the decision of the President must receive the attention of the
Legislature, who have the last word on my fate. I look forward to engaging Parliament
when the matter of my removal from office is debated – to share with those custodians of
our prosecutorial independence, my experience. In that engagement, I hope that they will
see that the Enquiry and the President has been grossly unfair in the manner in which they
have handled a matter so important to the principle of prosecutorial independence.
8. I thank many South Africans and prosecutors who have supported the work of the NPA
and urge that nothing is spared to give the NPA the full support it needs to discharge its
constitutional mandate. No prosecutor should fear taking prosecutorial decisions because
of threat of disciplinary action. To those prosecutors that I worked with, remain strong
and courageous, fearing nothing but revering the Constitution. You remain the
custodians of our Constitution and for that be strong and courageous.
Issued by Adv. Nomgcobo Jiba
26 April 2019