Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]          The applicant, Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd (‘TSA’), seeks, inter alia, an order that the decision by the third respondent, Mr S Abrahams, alternatively, the second respondent, Mr M Mpshe, to authorise a prosecution in terms of section 2(4) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (‘POCA’), against TSA on a charge of racketeering in terms of section (2)(1)(e) of POCA, be declared to be inconsistent with the principle of legality. It seeks to have the decision reviewed and set aside.

[2]          The second respondent, Mr Mpshe, was the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions at the time when he signed the authorisation as required by section 2(4) of POCA on 14 December 2007.

[3]          The third respondent, Mr Abrahams, was the National Director of Public Prosecutions when he signed the second authorisation in terms of section 2(4) of POCA on 6 June 2018.

[4]          The parties were ad idem that the issue before the court is in essence whether the second or third respondents (‘the NDPPs’) rationally concluded that there was reasonable and probable cause to believe that TSA had, directly or indirectly or with common purpose, participated in an enterprise run by Mr Shabir Shaik, through a pattern of racketeering activity, comprising the planned, ongoing, continuous or repeated participation or involvement in at least two Schedule 1 offences.