South African Communist Party (SACP) has demanded of Parliament to immediately grill NPA boss, Sean Abrahams and discard him if necessary.
SACP said an inquiry into Abraham’s fitness to hold office must be swiftly instituted and, an amendment made on the National Prosecuting Authority Act for the appointment of the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
The party believes that the behavior displayed by Abrahams in bringing charges against the Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan is uncool.
“It was amateurish, to say the least. It also fed into the concerns that state institutions were being used to target leaders who were being isolated for standing in the way of certain private interests amidst the widespread problem of corporate capture in the state and state-owned enterprises, corruption and rent-seeking,” SACP indicated.
Specifically, SACP is pissed that NPA boss spent a lot of time talking about South African Receiver of Revenue (Sars) rogue unit when he announced his decision to charge the Minister.
But then, “changed the terms and announced a completely unrelated and highly defective charge.
“Abrahams later said he could consider changing his decision to charge Minister Gordhan if he was to make representations to him as the NDPP. There is no doubt that he took this new decision under duress, as a result of public pressure.
“He however never shed any shred of legally valid reason why, in the first place, he did not offer the Minister an opportunity to make those representations before charging him and broadcasting the decision to the media in a highly problematic manner that starkly reminded us of one notorious style of work by former NDPP Bulelani Ngcuka,” stated SACP.
Thereafter, SACP asserted that public nominations and Parliamentary selection process must be made a standard principle governing the appointment of the heads of all independent state organs established.
The assertion was made in line with the 9th Section of the Constitution. SACP acknowledged that the Constitution identified the President as the appointing authority of the NDPP.
Nonetheless, it argued that the Constitution does not prohibit a democratic public participatory process.
“This process is followed for example in the appointment of the Public Protector. Its absence in the NPA Act easily opens up space for allegations of partisanship in certain cases and errors committed by the NDPP, with wider implications to the President who appoints the NDPP without that process,” added SACP.