Court bid on the cards to block Ramaphosa’s appointment of Andy Mothibi as NDPP head

Advocate Barnabas Xulu, who filed an application to prevent the appointment of the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), says he will amend the court papers to compel Andy Mothibi to respond to questions about his controversial appointment.

In papers, Xulu said the appointment is unlawful because Mothibi did not participate in a formal interview process and he also accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of lacking transparency in the appointment. 

Mothibi, who replaced Advocate Shamila Batohi, is expected to assume his new responsibilities from February 1.

Xulu and his law firm, B Xulu and Partners Incorporated, filed an urgent court application in December 2025 to prevent Ramaphosa from appointing Mothibi  as the new NDPP. 

Xulu argued that the interview process was flawed, biased, and unlawful. 

His objections were centered on candidate Advocate Hermione Cronje, whom he accused of “unlawful information peddling”. He alleged that the advisory panel failed to properly address his objections during her interview, while other candidates faced scrutiny for objections against them. Xulu also claimed Cronje received preferential treatment.

He later withdrew the urgent interdict but continued to seek a review of the advisory panel’s report. 

Following Ramaphosa’s appointment of Mothibi, Xulu filed a second urgent application to block the appointment, describing the process as “politically deliberate”.

Speaking on Tuesday, Xulu said he would amend the court papers to challenge the appointment of Mothibi. 

He stated the appointment is unlawful and should be set aside. 

Xulu said this is because Ramaphosa keeps referring to the interview process, even though Mothibi did not participate in the process. 

“He (Ramaphosa) kept referring to that tainted process as if it was lawful. Why is he referring to that thing when Mothibi was not part of the process?” he asked, adding that the appointment will be challenged on these grounds.

“Because of the position they have taken, his appointment will be challenged. The appointment should be set aside. There was no need for the President to say he considered those papers (the panel report) and the process that was not transparent,” Xulu said. 

Asked to comment, Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said the Presidency will respond to the court papers when Xulu decides to proceed with the court action he is considering. 

Justice Department Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi, through her spokesperson, Terrence Manase, said that such a court application will be rigorously opposed, as it will lack substance, rationale, and legal basis. 

Kubayi added that the appointment of the NDPP is a constitutional prerogative of the President, exercised in terms of Section 179 of the Constitution and the applicable provisions of the National Prosecuting Authority Act.

“The Minister views the continuous litigation by Advocate Xulu to be malicious and not in the interest of this country and fighting crime and corruption in this country,” she said. 

The appointment also raised serious concerns that this could be a strategic move to protect Ramaphosa’s associate and alleged relative, Hangwani Maumela, from prosecution in the R2 billion Tembisa Hospital tender scandal. 

The appointment also prompted the DA  to filed an application under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) to compel the Presidency to release the advisory panel's report. 

The SIU spokesperson, Kaizer Kganyago, who indicated that Mothibi would not comment about his appointment, said the work, under Leonard Lekgetho, the acting head of SIU, would not be affected, adding that there will be continuity as Lekgetho has been in charge of the operations at the SIU.

Kganyago said Mothibi announced that he instructed the team probing Tembisa Hospital to conclude the investigation in 2026, and this will continue as planned.

“It is worth highlighting that the SIU made the decision to share the interim report with the public and has already acted on some of the outcomes that have been determined. The SIU takes proactive measures based on conclusions reached throughout the investigation without waiting for it to be fully finalised,” he said. 

Meanwhile, political analyst Zakhele Ndlovu said Xulu’s actions are justified, adding that the fact that Mothibi did not participate in the interview process makes his appointment unlawful. 

Politician and lawyer Zwelethu  “Mighty” Madasa said that although he is not privy to the court papers in this case, Mothibi’s appointment was demonstrably not “objective and fair.” 

Madasa said this is because other candidates shortlisted were ignored without a reason, while Mothibi was not subjected to the same process as others.

“Lastly, the resources expended in the recruitment process were not effectively and economically used as stipulated in Section 195 (b) of the Constitution,” he said.

manyane.manyane@inl.co.za