Simelane rejects interference claims in TRC prosecution fallout

Former National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head, Advocate Menzi Simelane, has rejected claims that internal decisions, including the removal of senior prosecutor Anton Ackerman, derailed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) prosecutions.

Testifying under cross-examination at the ongoing inquiry, Simelane said there was no concrete evidence against Ackerman and no external interference in prosecutorial decisions.

His testimony addressed the long-standing allegations by victims’ families that key TRC cases were deliberately stalled. Simelane, however, described the delays as the result of institutional dysfunction, citing poor coordination and strained working relationships.

Returning to the stand on Tuesday, Simelane maintained that complaints against Ackerman were vague and never substantiated.

Simelane said concerns raised by members of the police and intelligence community, often linked to Ackerman’s role during the apartheid era, were never formalised into actionable complaints.

He added that even during high-level government meetings, no official could directly link their concerns to misconduct by Ackerman, nor was a formal case made for his removal.

Instead, Simelane pointed to operational challenges, saying a breakdown in cooperation between the NPA and law enforcement hindered progress, with some officials unwilling to work with certain prosecutors.

“The only issue that the cluster was not concerned about Mr. Ackerman or anybody for that matter, the cluster was only concerned about whether the program is running as expected. But when the cluster became aware that it is not running as expected because there is still this lack of cooperation.”

On why TRC prosecutions appeared to stall after 2007, Simelane was unequivocal that decisions to pursue or withdraw cases rest solely with prosecutors.

He said he was unaware of any instance during his tenure where a prosecution decision was blocked by external forces.

Simelane argued that even if Ackerman’s removal had taken place, it may have caused delays but not a complete halt to prosecutions.

“The prosecutors must explain that because the prosecutors are the ones that, and they would have told you that they are the ones who are responsible for taking a decision to prosecute. After which decision is taken, they are the ones who are responsible for placing the matter on the roll, on the courtroom, or removing it, as the case may be. Only they do that and nobody else.”

His testimony comes amid strong criticism from victims’ families, who argue that Ackerman’s removal contributed to a near decade-long gap – between 2007 and 2016 – during which no TRC-related prosecutions or inquests were pursued.

While rejecting claims of interference, Simelane acknowledged the impact of the delays, describing it as “regrettable” that some families were forced to pursue legal action to advance unresolved apartheid-era cases.

He also clarified that the purpose of key government meetings at the time was not to target individuals, but to understand and address the breakdown in institutional coordination.

The commission’s proceedings resumes on Thursday.

Written by: Lebohang Ndashe