NPA slams Mapisa-Nqakula’s second bid to block her arrest as ‘abuse of process’

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has slammed the attempt by the counsel of National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula to block her arrest as “an abuse of process”.

The High Court in Pretoria on Monday heard an application by the embattled Mapisa-Nqakula for a second order interdicting the NPA from arresting her.

Judge Sulet Potterill said she will hand down her ruling on the application on 2 April. The state has undertaken not to arrest Mapisa-Nqakula until the ruling is delivered.

The National Assembly speaker has been implicated in bribery allegations, involving more than R2.3 million, dating back to her time as defence minister – a matter first raised in parliament in 2021, by United Democratic Movement (UDM) leader Bantu Holomisa.

No threats of arrest

During court proceedings on Monday, NPA counsel Makhosi Gwala argued the prosecuting authority never threatened to arrest Mapisa-Nqakula.

Gwala said the State asked Mapisa-Nqakula to hand herself over to the authorities at a police station and then to appear at court. “This is a procedural step,” he said.

Gwala argued the Speaker and her lawyers have shown no reasonable arguments why she needed to urgently interdict the State from arresting her, saying their decision to force the State to respond to the case on Monday is “an abuse of process” and that no one can claim a “right not to be arrested”.

“The applicant is trying to frustrate us from performing our statutory function,” Gwala argued. “It’s unheard of that one demands a docket before they are charged.”

“We cannot treat people according to their status, this will collapse the judicial system.”

Gwala said widespread reporting on the case against Mapisa-Nqakula has already damaged her reputation.

ALSO READ: NPA to request ‘substantial’ bail for Mapisa-Nqakula so she won’t ‘abscond’

Investigators ‘strong-arming’ Mapisa-Nqakula

Earlier, Mapisa-Nqakula’s Advocate Reg Willis argued that investigators were “trying to strong-arm” her into handing herself over to police.

During arguments, Willis suggested that the Investigative Directorate’s (ID) search and seizure of Mapisa-Nqakula’s home was unlawful, because her lawyer was not present when it happened.

Last week, law enforcement authorities raided her Johannesburg home as part of ongoing corruption investigations against her.

Willis stressed that the ID’s claims that Mapisa-Nqakula had agreed to hand herself over on Wednesday is “disputed” and that investigators were “trying to strong-arm” her.

“She was repeatedly asked by Seargeant [Suneel] Bellochun ‘just come down with us, we’ll sort it all out’. Why is that? One can only reasonably suspect that they want to get her aside without her attorney.

“What they want to do is conscript her in the hope that she’s going to give evidence against herself and say something,” Willis argued.

Interim interdict

Earlier, Willis said the speaker has elected not to file a replying affidavit to the NPA’s affidavit.

He explained that Mapisa-Nqakula is seeking an interim interdict to block the state from arresting her, pending the outcome of her first interdict application last week – where she seeks an order blocking her arrest and granting her access to the evidence against her.

Willis said she was forced to bring this new application because the State would not give an undertaking that they would not arrest her, pending the resolution of her first application which did not have “the desired effect”.

Willis denied the State’s accusations that Mapisa-Nqakula’s attorney Stephen May has been delaying the progress of the case against the speaker.

Mapisa-Nqakula’s rights

He argued that Mapisa-Nqakula has the same rights as everyone else, but added that she has a “reputation, more than most” and has a “good reputation”.

However, Judge Potterill rebutted the argument. “Should ‘important people’ not be arrested?”

Willis argues that Mapisa-Nqakula’s constitutional rights are “already being infringed”.

He referred and relied on Judge Roland Sutherland’s ruling on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s successful application to interdict the private prosecution summons issued against him by former president Jacob Zuma to bolster the case for Mapisa-Nqakula to be granted an interdict against the State.

This ruling delivered in relation to a private prosecution where there was no evidence that Ramaphosa had even committed a crime – not a prosecution instituted by the State, which says it has a “strong” case against Mapisa-Nqakula.

“Ex-president Zuma’s case was flawed on the argument on behalf of President Ramaphosa that the nolle prosequi certificate  was unlawful. The only difference is we are showing the court on the basis of a reasonable apprehension they are acting unlawfully against our client.

“They are not following procedure, not acting in good faith, not complying with their own standing orders and why should we have to actually wait for them to actually arrest her when our rights are already imperilled,” Willis argued.

Willis told Potterill that Mapisa-Nqakula’s lawyers are “certain that the State is intercepting our communication”, a claim the state denied.

ALSO READ: ‘Mapisa-Nqakula does not have a right not to be arrested’ – NPA