Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
Home / Case Law / High Courts RSS ← Back

Email this article

separate emails by commas, maximum limit of 4 addresses

Sponsored by


Article Enquiry

Panday v National Director of Public Prosecutions (4477/2018P) [2020] ZAKZPHC 52


Embed Video

Panday v National Director of Public Prosecutions (4477/2018P) [2020] ZAKZPHC 52

Panday v National Director of Public Prosecutions (4477/2018P) [2020] ZAKZPHC 52

25th September 2020


Font size: -+

Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]             This matter has its genesis in the 2010 FIFA World Cup hosted in South Africa. On 26 January 2018, Mr Abrahams, who was at the time the National Director of Public Prosecutions (the NDPP), communicated his decision to prosecute the applicant (Mr Panday) for fraud and corruption (the impugned decision). In this application, Mr Panday asks that:


‘The decision of the respondent in terms of section 22(2)(c) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act 32 of 1998, on 26 January 2018, in Durban-Central CAS 781/2010, to prosecute the applicant be reviewed and set aside’.



[2]             In the years since 1994, there has been a single National Prosecuting Authority (the NPA). The head is the NDPP.[1] This office was created by s 179(1)(a) of the Constitution,[2] read with the National Prosecuting Authority Act (the Act).[3] It is as well to briefly mention those members of the NPA who feature most prominently in this application. Mr Abrahams was NDPP for the period from June 2015 to August 2018. Thereafter Dr Ramaite was appointed Acting NDPP until 1 February 2019, since when Ms Batohi has been the NDPP. Ms Jiba was Deputy NDPP for a period after which Mr Mzinyathi was the Acting Deputy NDPP. At all material times, the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) KwaZulu-Natal was Ms Noko. Mr Letsholo was a senior advocate attached to the Durban Specialised Commercial Crime Unit (SCCU) of the NPA and Ms Vimbani was the Senior Deputy DPP for the SCCU.


[3]             Some context will give perspective. The impugned decision was to prosecute Mr Panday in CAS 781, along with Colonel Navin Madhoe and Captain Ashwin Narainpershad. The latter two were members of the South African Police Service (the SAPS) at the time. The allegation is that those three (the three suspects) defrauded the SAPS. This concerned the supply of temporary accommodation to members of the SAPS during the FIFA World Cup. The investigations in CAS 781 went anything but smoothly and, as a result, spawned three further dockets.


To subscribe email or click here
To advertise email or click here

Comment Guidelines

About is a product of Creamer Media.

Other Creamer Media Products include:
Engineering News
Mining Weekly
Research Channel Africa

Read more


We offer a variety of subscriptions to our Magazine, Website, PDF Reports and our photo library.

Subscriptions are available via the Creamer Media Store.

View store


Advertising on is an effective way to build and consolidate a company's profile among clients and prospective clients. Email

View options
Free daily email newsletter Register Now