Assessing the independence and credibility of the national prosecuting authority

Abstract

Members of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) are required to be dedicated to the rule of law. Yet, recent and past decision-making has caused instability in the functioning of the NPA. The decision to prosecute or not to prosecute involves the exercise of discretion. The NPAs use of this discretion has been called into question on numerous occasions which has resulted in the erosion of its independence and credibility. There are constitutional and legislative provisions in place to guide prosecutors in the decision-making process which allows for a measure of accountability. However, the link between prosecutorial independence and accountability for decision-making is not clear when looking at recent and past decisions by the National Directors of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, an evaluation of the instability in the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions during the period of 1998-2018 will be discussed. The research discusses the unwarranted intrusion on prosecutorial decision-making. Furthermore, external interfering has resulted in the loss of public confidence in the functioning of the NPA. The administrative duties of prosecutors are guided by constitutional and legislative procedures. Hence, the research will identify whether these procedures are efficient for the effective administration of the NPA. Key to the already mentioned will be providing recommendations on how to create stability in an institution that has been surrounded by instability for the past 20 years.