The Action Society team is in a state of disgusted incredulity with the unthinkable decision made by the Mitchells Plain court to grant bail to the man who raped his 12-year old niece Violet for a mere R2000, after he was already convicted and serving a 15-year sentence.This appalling decision has once again made it clear that our judicial system values the lives of criminals over victims and comes as one of the worst indictments of our judicial system that we have been witness to since our inception in 2019. A child rapist is now free to roam the streets simply because he did not agree with the terms of his sentence.
“The South African justice system is continuing to dig its own grave.A justice system cannot expect the public to have any faith in them when they allow convicted child rapists to be released on a mere R2000, free to victimise more children, and possibly never see the inside of a jail cell ever again. This decision sends a very stark message to women and children in South Africa and will only discourage more to seek justice,” said Action Society spokesperson, Juanita du Preez. “A court system is telling women and children that their dignity can be bought and sold for the same amount it costs for a hamper of monthly groceries.”
Violet’s case has been one of Action Society’s most contentious cases. After a two and a half year struggle in court, our collaborative efforts with the prosecution finally culminated toward a sentence 15 years direct imprisonment for rape. We were shocked when a leave to appeal was granted in January of this year. Little did we know that this was just the writing on the wall for the unthinkable decision to let him freely walk out of the prison doors a free man.
“This has possibly been one of the worst decisions in the history of the South African judicial system. With this awful decision, in combination with the acquittal of the Blue Light Eight brigade, the courts are creating a safe haven for criminals in South Africa. It is clear that the system is fundamentally broken, and something needs to be done now before our society spills into a state of complete anarchy,” concluded du Preez.
While we appreciate the NPA’s efforts that led to the conviction in this case, the subsequent events require urgent clarification, which we formulated in an official letter sent today.
1. Did the NPA oppose the convicted person’s application for bail pending the outcome of the appeal?
2. On what grounds did the convicted person base his application for bail? Would the NPA be willing to provide the documentation filed in this application?
3. Was the victim and her legal guardian informed of the bail application and given an opportunity to make representations?
4. How does the NPA ensure consistent application of such policies in order to avoid undermining public confidence in the justice system?
