Aspirant Prosecutor Programme 2027 | NPA Entry
Examination Study Guide, Practice Questions &
Answers, South Africa Prosecutor Exam Prep
Question 1: In the context of the Aspirant Prosecutor Programme in
South Africa, which of the following is the primary purpose of the
programme?
A. To provide permanent employment to law graduates within the National
Prosecuting Authority
B. To offer in-service training and practical prosecutorial experience to law
graduates
C. To replace the formal LLB degree requirements for becoming a
prosecutor
D. To serve as a private internship programme run by the South African
Police Service
CORRECT ANSWER: B. To offer in-service training and practical
prosecutorial experience to law graduates
Rationale: The Aspirant Prosecutor Programme is an internship programme
within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) that entails in-service
training and assists law graduates in gaining practical prosecutorial
experience .
Question 2: Which of the following courses must be included in a
law degree for a person to be eligible for enrolment in the Aspirant
Prosecutor Programme?
A. Law of Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure,
and Interpretation of Statutes
B. Law of Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law,
and Administrative Law
C. Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Law of Delict, Civil Procedure, and
Company Law
D. Law of Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure, and
Labour Law
CORRECT ANSWER: A. Law of Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal
Procedure, Civil Procedure, and Interpretation of Statutes
Rationale: Eligibility for enrolment on the Aspirant Prosecutor Programme
requires a Bachelor's degree in law that includes at least Law of Evidence,
,Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure, and Interpretation of
Statutes .
Question 3: Who bears the burden of proving that an arrest without
a warrant was lawful?
A. The accused person
B. The complainant
C. The arresting officer or the party justifying the arrest
D. The presiding magistrate
CORRECT ANSWER: C. The arresting officer or the party justifying
the arrest
Rationale: Once the plaintiff establishes that an interference with physical
liberty has occurred, the deprivation is prima facie unlawful and the
defendant bears the onus to prove that there was a justification for the
interference .
Question 4: In terms of section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure
Act 51 of 1977, which of the following is required for an arrest
without a warrant to be lawful?
A. The arresting officer must have proof beyond reasonable doubt that the
suspect committed a Schedule 1 offence
B. The arresting officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect
committed a Schedule 1 offence
C. The arresting officer must have witnessed the suspect committing the
offence
D. The arresting officer must have obtained a warrant from a magistrate
before effecting the arrest
CORRECT ANSWER: B. The arresting officer must have a
reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a Schedule 1
offence
Rationale: For an arrest without a warrant to be lawful under section
40(1)(b), the arresting officer must entertain a reasonable suspicion that the
suspect has committed a Schedule 1 offence .
Question 5: What is the correct test for determining whether a
suspicion held by an arresting officer was reasonable?
,A. Whether the arresting officer subjectively believed that he had reason to
suspect
B. Whether the suspect actually committed the offence in question
C. Whether a reasonable person, confronted with the same information,
would form a suspicion that the person committed the offence
D. Whether the prosecutor would have authorised the arrest based on the
same information
CORRECT ANSWER: C. Whether a reasonable person, confronted
with the same information, would form a suspicion that the person
committed the offence
Rationale: The test for determining the existence of a reasonable suspicion
is an objective one. The question is whether a reasonable person,
confronted with the same information, would form a suspicion that a
person has committed an offence as envisaged in Schedule 1 .
Question 6: In South African criminal procedure, what is the
significance of the Shabalala v Attorney-General of the Transvaal
decision regarding the police docket?
A. It established that the police docket is the exclusive property of the
prosecution
B. It recognised the right of an accused to access information held in the
police docket based on the right to a fair trial
C. It prohibited any disclosure of witness statements to the defence before
trial
D. It held that the police docket may be withheld from the defence in all
circumstances
CORRECT ANSWER: B. It recognised the right of an accused to
access information held in the police docket based on the right to a
fair trial
Rationale: In Shabalala v Attorney-General of the Transvaal, the
Constitutional Court based prosecution disclosure on an accused's right to
a fair trial, recognising the right of access to information held in the police
docket .
Question 7: According to South African law, can an extra-curial
admission made by one accused be used as evidence against a co-
accused?
, A. Yes, if the admission is proved to have been made voluntarily
B. Yes, if the admission is confirmed by a magistrate
C. No, an extra-curial admission is only admissible against the person who
made it
D. Yes, if the co-accused was present when the admission was made
CORRECT ANSWER: C. No, an extra-curial admission is only
admissible against the person who made it
Rationale: Section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that
evidence of an admission made extra-curially by any person in relation to
the commission of an offence is admissible against him at criminal
proceedings relating to that offence. It does not contemplate such an
admission being tendered as evidence against anyone else .
Question 8: What does section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51
of 1977 provide regarding confessions?
A. A confession made by any person is admissible as evidence against any
other person involved in the same offence
B. No confession made by any person shall be admissible as evidence
against another person
C. A confession is admissible against another person if it is corroborated by
independent evidence
D. A confession is admissible against another person if the maker of the
confession testifies in court
CORRECT ANSWER: B. No confession made by any person shall be
admissible as evidence against another person
Rationale: Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act is clear: a confession
is only admissible against the accused making that confession, not against
any other person .
Question 9: In the context of the Aspirant Prosecutor Programme,
what is the role of a prosecutor as distinguished from a criminal
defence attorney?
A. The prosecutor represents the accused, while the defence attorney
represents the State
B. The prosecutor represents the State and bears the burden of proving the
charge beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defence attorney represents
the accused
Examination Study Guide, Practice Questions &
Answers, South Africa Prosecutor Exam Prep
Question 1: In the context of the Aspirant Prosecutor Programme in
South Africa, which of the following is the primary purpose of the
programme?
A. To provide permanent employment to law graduates within the National
Prosecuting Authority
B. To offer in-service training and practical prosecutorial experience to law
graduates
C. To replace the formal LLB degree requirements for becoming a
prosecutor
D. To serve as a private internship programme run by the South African
Police Service
CORRECT ANSWER: B. To offer in-service training and practical
prosecutorial experience to law graduates
Rationale: The Aspirant Prosecutor Programme is an internship programme
within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) that entails in-service
training and assists law graduates in gaining practical prosecutorial
experience .
Question 2: Which of the following courses must be included in a
law degree for a person to be eligible for enrolment in the Aspirant
Prosecutor Programme?
A. Law of Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure,
and Interpretation of Statutes
B. Law of Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law,
and Administrative Law
C. Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Law of Delict, Civil Procedure, and
Company Law
D. Law of Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure, and
Labour Law
CORRECT ANSWER: A. Law of Evidence, Criminal Law, Criminal
Procedure, Civil Procedure, and Interpretation of Statutes
Rationale: Eligibility for enrolment on the Aspirant Prosecutor Programme
requires a Bachelor's degree in law that includes at least Law of Evidence,
,Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure, and Interpretation of
Statutes .
Question 3: Who bears the burden of proving that an arrest without
a warrant was lawful?
A. The accused person
B. The complainant
C. The arresting officer or the party justifying the arrest
D. The presiding magistrate
CORRECT ANSWER: C. The arresting officer or the party justifying
the arrest
Rationale: Once the plaintiff establishes that an interference with physical
liberty has occurred, the deprivation is prima facie unlawful and the
defendant bears the onus to prove that there was a justification for the
interference .
Question 4: In terms of section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure
Act 51 of 1977, which of the following is required for an arrest
without a warrant to be lawful?
A. The arresting officer must have proof beyond reasonable doubt that the
suspect committed a Schedule 1 offence
B. The arresting officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect
committed a Schedule 1 offence
C. The arresting officer must have witnessed the suspect committing the
offence
D. The arresting officer must have obtained a warrant from a magistrate
before effecting the arrest
CORRECT ANSWER: B. The arresting officer must have a
reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a Schedule 1
offence
Rationale: For an arrest without a warrant to be lawful under section
40(1)(b), the arresting officer must entertain a reasonable suspicion that the
suspect has committed a Schedule 1 offence .
Question 5: What is the correct test for determining whether a
suspicion held by an arresting officer was reasonable?
,A. Whether the arresting officer subjectively believed that he had reason to
suspect
B. Whether the suspect actually committed the offence in question
C. Whether a reasonable person, confronted with the same information,
would form a suspicion that the person committed the offence
D. Whether the prosecutor would have authorised the arrest based on the
same information
CORRECT ANSWER: C. Whether a reasonable person, confronted
with the same information, would form a suspicion that the person
committed the offence
Rationale: The test for determining the existence of a reasonable suspicion
is an objective one. The question is whether a reasonable person,
confronted with the same information, would form a suspicion that a
person has committed an offence as envisaged in Schedule 1 .
Question 6: In South African criminal procedure, what is the
significance of the Shabalala v Attorney-General of the Transvaal
decision regarding the police docket?
A. It established that the police docket is the exclusive property of the
prosecution
B. It recognised the right of an accused to access information held in the
police docket based on the right to a fair trial
C. It prohibited any disclosure of witness statements to the defence before
trial
D. It held that the police docket may be withheld from the defence in all
circumstances
CORRECT ANSWER: B. It recognised the right of an accused to
access information held in the police docket based on the right to a
fair trial
Rationale: In Shabalala v Attorney-General of the Transvaal, the
Constitutional Court based prosecution disclosure on an accused's right to
a fair trial, recognising the right of access to information held in the police
docket .
Question 7: According to South African law, can an extra-curial
admission made by one accused be used as evidence against a co-
accused?
, A. Yes, if the admission is proved to have been made voluntarily
B. Yes, if the admission is confirmed by a magistrate
C. No, an extra-curial admission is only admissible against the person who
made it
D. Yes, if the co-accused was present when the admission was made
CORRECT ANSWER: C. No, an extra-curial admission is only
admissible against the person who made it
Rationale: Section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that
evidence of an admission made extra-curially by any person in relation to
the commission of an offence is admissible against him at criminal
proceedings relating to that offence. It does not contemplate such an
admission being tendered as evidence against anyone else .
Question 8: What does section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51
of 1977 provide regarding confessions?
A. A confession made by any person is admissible as evidence against any
other person involved in the same offence
B. No confession made by any person shall be admissible as evidence
against another person
C. A confession is admissible against another person if it is corroborated by
independent evidence
D. A confession is admissible against another person if the maker of the
confession testifies in court
CORRECT ANSWER: B. No confession made by any person shall be
admissible as evidence against another person
Rationale: Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act is clear: a confession
is only admissible against the accused making that confession, not against
any other person .
Question 9: In the context of the Aspirant Prosecutor Programme,
what is the role of a prosecutor as distinguished from a criminal
defence attorney?
A. The prosecutor represents the accused, while the defence attorney
represents the State
B. The prosecutor represents the State and bears the burden of proving the
charge beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defence attorney represents
the accused
