Fulcrum29
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 55,064
Except we both know that's not what he is talking about.
On the consultation thing, does she have to be consulted about everything? If so what is the point of having the whole NPA?
Actually, it has less to do with consultation, but more to do with written consent as per the law. The suspect is charged under the "Terrorism Act", Chapter 2,
No. 33 of 2004: Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, 2004.
CHAPTER 2
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
PART I
Offence of terrorism and offences associated or connected with terrorist activities
2. Any person who engages in a terrorist activity is guilty of the offence of terrorism.
CHAPTER 3
PROVISIONS RELATING TO OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
PART I
Provisions relating to offences
...
Consent of National Director to institute proceedings and reporting obligations
16. (1) No prosecution under Chapter 2 may be instituted without the written authority of the National Director.
Though News24 reported,
Parliament fire: Cops fight each other over investigation while NPA warns prosecutors about terrorism charges | News24
The prosecution of Zandile Mafe has been hindered by infighting within the Hawks and indecision in the NPA.
News24 can reveal that acrimony between different provincial divisions of the Hawks has developed into a tussle over who controls the docket and investigation. Beyond this, the decision to level terrorism charges against Mafe caused tension within the uppermost ranks of the NPA, seemingly because prosecutions boss Shamila Batohi was not consulted beforehand.
she still legally had to authorise the procedure, signing it into action, or did she?
This charge, and some other charges, could have been added at a later date pending on the investigation, but this was rushed to oppose the bail application. How is that going, but I guess we will know tomorrow, and how is the investigation going?
The problem is these charges don't strengthen a case, it is merits, and improper merits can weaken a case. Yes, incorrect charges can be withdrawn or even worse, dismissed by the court hence being discarded as undesirable, and it may complicate any preparation you may have had, and the opposition may capitalise on the bargain being at the advantage. Courts don't like to be messed around, especially come to postponements due to ill-preparation. From where I am viewing this, the NPA made their own position compromised.
Time will tell, but I am kinda excited to see the "explosive device", can't wait to be intrigued though it will still be long until the trial... well, the NPA better have their trial because there are no other suspects.
In the end, what is important is that this terrorism charge must be legally made in accordance with the Act, and it would be rather telling to see it ditched tomorrow.