The South African government released a National Strategic Plan (“NSP”) in response to the 2018 Summit on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide. The Summit identified key interventions and developed strategies regarding gender-based violence and other challenges women and children face in South Africa. The NSP was published as a framework to recognize and affirm the challenges and rights identified at the Summit. The vision of the NSP is “A South Africa free from gender-based violence directed at women, children and LGBTQIA+ persons” and is enacted through six key pillars: 1. accountability, coordination and leadership; 2. prevention and rebuilding social cohesion; 3. justice, safety, and protection; 4. response, care, support, and healing; 5. economic power; and 6. research and information management. The NSP lists specific general strategies and defines the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders to accelerate, advance, and realize the vision and outcomes of the NSP. The NSP outlines the specific short-and long-term goals and which stakeholder is responsible for specific targets under each pillar. It also provides a brief history of gender-based violence and femicide in South Africa, as well as a summary of relevant legislation in South Africa.
South Africa
Reports
National Strategic Plan on Gender-based Violence & Femicide (2020)
Sexual Violence by Educators in South African Schools: Gaps in Accountability (2014)
The Centre for Applied Legal Studies at the University of Witwatersrand and Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School released a joint report on sexual violence committed by educators against students in South African schools.
Die Sentrum vir Toegepaste Regstudies by die Universiteit van Witwatersrand en Avon Global Centre for Women and Justice by Cornell Law School het 'n gesamentlike verslag vrygestel oor seksuele geweld wat opvoeders teen studente in Suid-Afrikaanse skole gepleeg het.
Domestic Case Law
Mayelane v. Ngwenyama Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2013)
The issue in this case was to what extent, in Xitsonga customary law, the absence of a first wife’s consent to her husband’s subsequent polygamous marriages affects the validity of those marriages. In this case, the applicant entered into a customary marriage with the deceased in 1984. The applicant objected to the respondent’s claim that she entered a valid customary polygamous marriage to the deceased in 2008, 13 months before the deceased’s death. The Court held that, in accordance with its obligation to develop living customary law in a manner consistent with the Constitution’s protection of human dignity and equality, Xitsonga customary law had to be developed to include a requirement that the first wife’s consent is necessary to validate any of her husband’s subsequent customary marriages. Guided by this principle, the Court held invalid the marriage of the decedent to the respondent.
Ramuhovhi and Others v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Others Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2018)
In this case, the Constitutional Court held that §7(1) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (RMCA) was inconsistent with 172(2) of the Constitution, and therefore invalid, because it unfairly discriminated against women in polygamous customary marriages entered into before the enactment of the RMCA on the bases of gender and race, ethnic, or social origin. This case followed Gumede v. President of the Republic of South Africa, in which it was held that §7(1) was invalid as to monogamous customary marriages, but left the question of polygamous customary marriages for Parliament. The effect of this ruling was that pre-RCMA marriages continued to be governed by customary law, while post-RCMA marriages were automatically out of community of property. The Court declared that, in the interim until Parliament changes the RCMA, a husband and his wives in pre-RCMA polygamous customary marriages must share equally in the right of ownership of, and other rights attaching to, family property, including the right of management and control of family property.
Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Eighteen Others v. Minister of Home Affairs Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2006)
The issue in this case was whether the fact that no provision was made for same-sex couples to marry denied those parties equal protection of the law and was thus unfairly discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation, contrary to the Constitution’s protection of sexual orientation. The common law and the Marriage Act 25 of 1961 defined marriage as between man and woman. The Court stated that the exclusion of same sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage was not a “tangential inconvenience” but a “harsh … statement by the law that same-sex couples are outsiders.” The Court held that the common law and §30(1) of the Marriage Act were inconsistent with §§ 9(1) & (3) of the Constitution to the extent that they did not allow same sex couples to enjoy the status, entitlements, and responsibilities that heterosexual couples enjoyed. The Court held that Parliament should remedy this exclusion and, if it does not, courts should read §30(1) of the Marriage Act to include the words “or spouse” after the words “or husband” as they appear marriage vows.
Rahube v. Rahube Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2019)
In this case, the Constitutional Court declared §2(1) of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act (Upgrading Act) unconstitutional. §2(1) of the Upgrading Act automatically turned land tenure rights into rights of property ownership, without providing other occupants or affected parties an opportunity to make submissions. The Court held §2(1) unconstitutional because it had a discriminatory effect on women’s property rights. During apartheid, only men could be the head of the family and hold Certificates of Deed and Grant. This had the effect of excluding women from holding land tenure rights. The Court determined that because §2(1) of the Upgrading Act was based on this apartheid position, it indirectly differentiated between men and women in a way that amounted to gender discrimination.
Shilubana and Others v. Nwamitwa Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2009)
The issue in this appeal was whether traditional leaders of a community can develop their customs and traditions to promote gender equality in the succession of traditional leadership in accordance with the Constitution. The dispute was about the right to succeed as Chief to the Valoyi community in Limpopo, where the Chief’s daughter, Ms. Shilubana, could not succeed to the Chief position after her father’s death because the principle of male primogeniture governed succession. Her uncle succeeded the deceased Chief instead, but, during his reign, he and the Royal Family unanimously resolved to confer the chieftainship to Ms. Shilubana when the current Chief died because it aligned with the new Constitution. This was also communicated to and accepted by the Commission for Traditional Leaders of the Northern Province. When Ms. Shilubana’s uncle, the Chief, died, a dispute arose between Ms. Shilubana and the Chief’s son as to who should succeed to Chieftainship. The Court held that where there is a dispute over the legal position under customary law, a court must consider both the traditions and the present practice of the community. If there is a new development within the community, the court must strive to recognize and give effect to that development, to the extent it is consistent with protecting rights. The Court found that the customary law of the Valoyi community did not permit a woman succeeding without amendment, but that the Royal Family had power to amend the customs and that their actions represented a development of law consistent with the spirit of the Constitution. Thus, it was a valid legal change, vesting Ms. Shilubana with the right to succeed to Chieftainship.
Tshabalala v. The State; Ntuli v. The State Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2019)
The issue on appeal in this case was whether the doctrine of common purpose can be applied to the common law crime of rape. Under the common law, rape is an instrumentality offense, which means that the perpetrator must have committed the act himself or facilitated the offense by his conduct. The doctrine of common purpose, however, is applied when a crime is committed by a group of people “with a mutual objective intended to produce a specific result against a targeted victim.” In this case, a group of young men terrorized a township, breaking into homes, attacking occupants, and several of the attackers repeatedly raped eight women. The men were charged and convicted of eight counts of rape, respectively, seven of which were imposed based on the doctrine of common purpose. The Constitutional Court reasoned that it is unsustainable to simply characterize rape as an act of a man inserting his genitalia into an unconsenting woman’s genitalia, especially in a group rape context where the mere presence of the group results in power and dominance over the victim. Thus, it held, the law must dispose of the misguided idea that rape is only a sex crime. The Court, therefore, declared that the instrumentality approach perpetuates gender inequality and promotes discrimination because it seeks to absolve those who may not have committed the crime itself but who contributed toward the commission of the crime from liability. The Court further reasoned that the doctrine of common purpose should apply to rape because the object and purpose of the doctrine is to “overcome an otherwise unjust result… by removing the element of causation from criminal liability and replacing it with the imputing deed which cased the [crime] to all the co-perpetrators.” It observed that it is “irrational and arbitrary” to not apply the doctrine to common law rape, as opposed to murder and assault, based on the distinction that a genital organ must be used to perpetrate rape. It argued that courts should be aiming to afford the constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and the protection of bodily and psychological integrity to victims of sexual assault. Therefore, in this case, the Court observed that the applicants knowingly and with the requisite intention participated in the activities of the group and fully associated themselves with its criminal designs. Thus, the Court held them guilty of rape based on the doctrine of common purpose.
Govender v. Ragavayah High Court of South Africa: Durban and Coast Local Division (Hooggeregs Hof van Suid Afrika: Durban en Kusafdeling) (2008)
The applicant was a woman married according to Hindu rites. Accordingly, when her husband died intestate, his parents stood to inherit his estate. The applicant sought a declaratory judgment that the word “spouse” as used in the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 includes a surviving partner to a monogamous Hindu marriage. The Court granted the declaratory judgment and held that the applicant was entitled to inherit from her deceased husband.
Die aansoeker was 'n vrou wat volgens Hindoe tradisie getroud is. Haar man het intestaat gesterf en gevolglik het sy ouers die reg gestaan om sy boedel te erf. Die applikant het 'n verklarende uitspraak aangevra dat die woord "gade" ingesluit word soos in die Intestaat se Erfreg Wet 81 van 1987, as 'n oorlewende vennoot vir 'n monogame Hindoe-huwelik. Die hof het die verklarende uitspraak toegestaan dat die aansoeker geregtig was om van haar oorlede man te erf.
Moosa N.O. and Others v. Harnaker and Others High Court of South Africa: Western Cape Division ( Hooggeregs Hof van Suid Afrika: Weskaap Afdeling) (2017)
The deceased was married to the second and third applicant under Islamic law. The marriage of the deceased and the third applicant was entered into before the marriage between the deceased and the second applicant. However, the deceased and the second applicant entered into a civil marriage to qualify for a home loan. Following the death of the deceased, The Registrar of Deeds, Cape Town, refused to register the title deed to the family home in the name of the third applicant. The Registrar’s refusal was premised on the meaning of the term “surviving spouse” as contemplated in terms of section 2C(1) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 (the “Wills Act”). According to the Registrar, the only recognised surviving spouse of the deceased is the second applicant as they entered into a civil marriage. The Court declared section 2C(1) of the Wills Act unconstitutional as it does not recognise the rights of spouses married under Islamic law nor multiple female spouses married to a deceased testator in polygynous Muslim marriages.
Die oorledene is volgens die Islamitiese Wet met ‘n tweede en derde applikant getroud. Die huwelik van die oorledene en die derde applikant is aangegaan voor die huwelik tussen die oorledene en die tweede applikant. Die oorledene en die tweede applikant het egter ‘n siviele huwelik aangegaan om te kwalifiseer vir ‘n huislening. Na die afsterwe van die oorledene het die Registrateur van Aktes, Kaapstad, geweier om die titel-akte van die gesinshuis in die naam van die derde aansoeker te registreer. Die weiering van die registrateur is gegrond op die betekenis van die term “oorlewende gade” soos beoog in terme van artikel 2C(1) van die Wet op Testamente 7 van 1953 ( die “Testamente Wet”). Volgens die registsrateur is die enigste erkende oorlewende gade van die oorledene, die tweede aansoeker aangesien hulle ‘n siviele huwelik aangegaan het. DIe hof het artikel 2C(1) van die Wet op testamente ongrondwetlik verklaar aangesien dit nie die regte van gades wat kragtens die Islamitiese wet getroud is, erken nie asook nie veelvuldige vroulike eggenote wat met ‘n oorlede testateur in ‘n poligamiese moslemhuwelik verbind is nie.
Hassam v. Jacobs NO Constitutional Court (Konstitusionele Hof) (2009)
The applicant was in a polygamous Muslim marriage. After her husband died intestate, the respondent, the executor of the deceased’s estate, refused the applicant’s claims on the basis that polygynous Muslim marriages were not legally recognised under the Intestate Succession Act. The court held that precluding the applicant from an inheritance unfairly discriminated on the grounds of religion, marital status, and gender, and was therefore inconsistent with section 9 of the Constitution. The court found that section 1 of the Intestate Succession Act was inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it did not include more than one spouse in a polygynous Muslim marriage in the protection afforded to “a spouse.” Accordingly, the applicant could inherit from her late husband’s estate.
Die applikant was in ‘n poligame Moslem-huwelik. Nadat haar man intestaat gesterf het, het die respondent, die eksekuteur van die oorledene se boedel, die applikant se eise geweier op grond daarvan dat poligame Moslem huwelike nie wettiglik erken word onder die Intestate Erfreg Wetgewing nie. Die hof het bevind dat daar onbillik gediskrimineer was teen die applikant op grond van godsdiens, huwelikstatus en geslag, was dus strydig met Artikel 9 van die Grondwet. Die hof het bevind dat Artikel 1 van die Intestate Wet strydig was met die konstitusie (Grondwet) en ongeldig is tot die mate dat dit nie meer as een gade in ‘n poligame Moslem-huwelik insluit tot die beskerming wat aan ‘n eggenoot gegee word nie. Gevolglik kon die applikant uit die boedel van haar oorlede man erf.
Daniels v. Campbell and Others Constitutional Court (Konstitusionele Hof) (2004)
The applicant was a woman married according to Muslim rites and whose husband had died intestate. The marriage was not solemnized by a marriage officer under the Marriage Act 25 of 1961. The house in which the applicant and her husband had lived was transferred to the deceased’s estate. The applicant was told that she could not inherit from the estate of the deceased because she had been married according to Muslim rites, and therefore was not a “surviving spouse.” A claim for maintenance against the estate was rejected on the same basis. The Court held that the word “spouse” as used in the Intestate Succession Act includes the surviving partner to a monogamous Muslim marriage and that the word “survivor” as used in the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990, includes the surviving partner to a monogamous Muslim marriage.
Die applikant was ‘n vrou wat volgens Moslem tradisie getroud is en wie se eggenoot intestaat gesterf het. Die huwelik is nie volgens die huwelikswet 25 van 1961 deur ’n huweliks beampte bekragtig nie. Die huis waarin die applikant en haar man gewoon het is na die oorledene se boedel oorgeplaas. Die applikant is meegedeel dat sy nie uit die boedel van die oorledene kon erf nie omdat sy getroud was volgens die Moslem tradisie en is dus nie 'n "oorlewende gade" nie. ’n Eis vir onderhoud teen die boedel is op dieselfde basis verwerp. Die hof het beslis dat die woord "gade" soos gebruik word in die Wet op Intestate Erfopvolging, die oorlewende maat van ’n monogame moslem-huwelik insluit. Die woord "oorlewende” wat gebruik word vir die Wet 27 van 1990 vir die onderhoud van oorlewende eggenote, sluit die oorlewende eggenoot in van 'n monogame Moslem huwelik
Bhe and Others v. Khayelitsha Magistrate Constitutional Court (Konstitusionele Hof) (2004)
This judgment constituted three related cases (Bhe, Shibi and SAHRC), which were decided together and concerned the African customary law rule of primogeniture. In Bhe, a mother brought an action to secure the property of her deceased husband for her daughters. In Shibi, the applicant was denied the right to inherit from her deceased brother’s intestate estate under African customary law. In SAHRC, the South African Human Rights Commission and the Women’s Legal Centre Trust brought an action in the public interest to declare the rule of male primogeniture contained within section 23 of the Black Administration Act 38 of 1927 invalid. The Constitutional Court declared section 23 invalid, meaning that all deceased estates were to be governed by the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987, under which widows and children can benefit regardless of their gender or legitimacy. The Court also ordered the division of estates in circumstances where the deceased person was in a polygamous marriage and was survived by more than one spouse and ordered that, in such instances, a surviving spouse shall inherit a child’s share of the intestate estate or so much of the intestate estate as does not exceed in value the amount fixed by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development by notice in the Gazette.
Hierdie uitspraak het bestaan uit drie verwante sake (BHE, Shibi en SARK) wat saam beslis is en het betrekking op die Afrika gebruiks regsreël van eersgeboortereg. In BHE het 'n moeder 'n saak gemaak om die eiendom van haar oorlede man vir haar dogters te verseker. In Shibi is die applikant volgens die Afrika gewoontereg, die reg ontsê om van die intestate boedel van haar broer te erf. In SAHRC het die Suid-Afrikaanse Menseregte Kommissie en die "Women’s Legal Centre Trust" 'n saak in die openbare belang gebring om die reël van manlike eersgeboortereg wat in artikel 23 van die Swart Administrasie Wet 38 van 1927 ongeldig te verklaar. Die Konstitusionele Hof het artikel 23 ongeldig verklaar wat beteken dat alle boedels van oorledenes onderworpe sal wees aan die Intestaat Opvolgwet 81 van 1987 waaronder weduwees en kinders voordeel kan trek ongeag hul geslag of wettigheid. Die Hof het ook gelas dat boedels onderverdeel word in omstandighede waar die oorledene in ’n poligame huwelik was en deur meer as een eggenoot oorleef word. In welke geval ’n oorlewende eggenoot ’n kind se deel van die intestate boedel erf of ’n waarde van die intestate boedel wat nie die bedrag wat deur die Minister vir Justisie en Grondwetlike Ontwikkeling vasgesteld is, oorskry word soos die kennisgewing in die Staatskoerant nie.
Dlanjwa v. Minister of Safety and Security Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2015)
The appellant was shot by her husband, who subsequently committed suicide. Her husband was employed by the South African Police Service, so she sued the Minister of Safety and Security for general damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of support arising from her injuries and the deceased’s suicide. She also sued for loss of support on behalf of her infant triplets with the deceased. The appellant alleged that the shooting and suicide were caused by, inter alia, the negligence of the station commander and/or certain police officials. The appellant claimed that these police officers failed to (a) dispossess the deceased of the firearm, (b) initiate disciplinary steps against him, and (c) have him criminally charged despite her previous requests and their knowledge that the deceased abused alcohol, had a violent temper and suicidal tendencies, had assaulted her, pointed a firearm at her and threatened to shoot her and thereafter kill himself, which led her to obtain a protection order against him under the Domestic Violence Act 1998. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that: (a) the police had a legal duty to investigate the appellant’s complaints once she reported that she feared for her safety; (b) the police negligently breached that duty by failing to take measures to protect the appellant from being injured by the deceased (and prevent the deceased from killing himself); and (c) the appellant had established wrongfulness on the part of the police due to the causal connection established between the police’s negligent breach of duty and the harm suffered by the appellant. The court therefore upheld the appeal.
Die appèllant is deur haar man geskiet waarna hy selfmoord gepleeg het. Haar man het vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens gewerk daarvolgens het sy die Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit gedagvaar vir algemene skadevergoeding, mediese uitgawes, verlies van verdienste, en die verlies van ondersteuning wat voortspruit uit haar beserings en die oorledene se selfmoord. Die appèllant beweer dat die skietery en selfmoord veroorsaak is deur, onder andere, die nalatigheid van die stasiebevelvoerder en/of sekere polisiebeamptes. Die appèllant beweer dat diè polisiebeamptes versuim het om (a) die oorledene se vuurwapen te verwyder, (b) dissiplinêre stappe teen hom te inisieer, en (c) om hom strafregtelik aan te kla ten spyte van haar vorige versoeke en hul kennis dat die oorledene alkohol misbruik het, 'n gewelddadige humeur het en selfmoordneigings gehad het, haar aangerand het, 'n vuurwapen op haar gerig het, en haar gedreig het dat hy haar gaan skiet en daarna selfmoord pleeg, wat daartoe gelei het om 'n beskermingsbevel teen hom onder die Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld van 1998 te verkry. Die Appèlhof het bevind dat: (a) die polisie 'n wettige plig gehad het om die appèllant se klagtes te ondersoek nadat sy berig het dat sy vir haar veiligheid gevrees het; (b) die polisie was nalatig was deur hul plig ter versuiming om maatreëls te tref om die appèllant te beskerm teen die oorledene (en om te verhoed dat die oorledene selfmoord pleeg); en (c) die appèllant het die onregmatigheid aan die kant van die polisie bewys as gevolg van die verband tussen die polisie se nalatige pligssversuim en die skade wat die appèllant gely het. Die hof het die appèl dus goedgekeur.
Naidoo v. Minister of Police Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2015)
The plaintiff attempted to bring a charge of assault against her former husband under the Domestic Violence Act of 1998 (“the DVA”). She was incorrectly advised by a police officer that she required a protection order from the Magistrate Court before she could receive police assistance. She was then told by a second officer that her former husband would bring a similar charge of assault against her if she persisted. The plaintiff, along with her former husband, was arrested. She filed a claim for damages against, inter alia, the Minister of Police, arguing that (i) the officials involved were acting in the course and within the scope of their employment and (ii) the Minister of Police was vicariously liable for failing to comply with the DVA. The court agreed that the DVA requires the police to assist and provide the maximum protection possible to victims of domestic abuse.
Die eiseres het probeer om 'n klag van aanranding teen haar voormalige man onder die Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld van 1998 ("Die DVA") te bring. 'n Polisiebeampte het haar verkeerdelik aanbeveel dat sy 'n beskermingsbevel van die Landdroshof moes kry voordat sy polisiehulp kon ontvang. 'n Tweede polisiebeampte het vir haar gesê dat haar voormalige man 'n soortgelyke klag van aanranding teen haar sou bring as sy aanhou met haar klagte. Die eiseres, asook haar voormalige man, was gearresteer. Sy het 'n eis vir skadevergoeding teen, onder andere, die Minister van Polisie ingedien en het aangvoer dat (i) die betrokke beamptes volgens en binne die bestek van hul werk opgetree het en (ii) die Minister van Polisie onmiddellik aanspreeklik was vir die versuiming om die DVA te volg. Die hof het saamgestem dat die DVA vereis dat die polisie hulp en die maksimum moontlike beskerming vir slagoffers van huishoudelike mishandeling moet gee.
Women's Legal Centre Trust v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Others High Court of South Africa: Western Cape Division (Hooggeregshof van Suid Afrika: Wes Kaap Afdeling) (2018)
The plaintiff petitioned to bring three consolidated actions directly to the Constitutional Court. They sought a declaratory order that the President recognize Muslim marriages as valid for all purposes in South Africa. The Constitutional Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ plea for direct access and instead directed them to the High Court. The High Court held that the State’s failure to enact legislation recognising religious Muslim marriages violated the rights of Muslim women based on religion, marital status, gender, and sex. The court directed the President, Cabinet, and Parliament to prepare and bring into operation legislation to recognise marriages performed in accordance with Sharia law.
Die eiser het 'n versoek om drie gekonsolideerde aksies direk na die Konstitusionele Hof te bring. Hulle het 'n verklarende-bevel aangevra dat die President, Moslem-huwelike as geldig vir alle doeleindes in Suid-Afrika erken. Die Konstitusionele Hof het die eisers se pleit vir direkte toegang van die hand gewys en het hulle eerder aan die Hooggeregshof verwys. Die Hooggeregshof het bevind dat die staat se versuim om wetgeving te aanvaar wat erkenning gee aan huwelike wat godsdienstig Moslem is, die regte van Moslemvroue gekend het op grond van godsdiens, huwelikstatus, geslag en seks. Die hof het die President, die Kabinet, en die Parlement oprag gegee om wetgeving voor te berei en in werking te stel om huwelike wat volgens die sharia-wetgewing uitgevoer is, te erken.
Jezile v. State High Court of South Africa: Western Cape Division (Hooggeregshof van Suid Afrika: Wes Kaap Afdeling) (2015)
The appellant was convicted in a regional magistrates' court of one count of human trafficking, three counts of rape, one count of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and one count of common assault against a 14-year-old schoolgirl, whom he had married in accordance with customary marriage laws. After she ran away from the appellant, the appellant took the complainant to Cape Town by taxi, where they resided with the appellant's brother and his wife. There, the incidents of rape and assault occurred. The appellant raised as one of his defenses and as a ground of appeal that the alleged rapes took place in the context of a customary arranged marriage, or ukuthwala. According to expert evidence, ukuthwala was an irregular form of initiating a customary marriage. Experts have stated that, in its traditional form, ukuthwala was consensual and innocuous, but there existed an 'aberrant' form in which young girls were abducted and often raped and beaten to force them into marriage. The magistrate held that the matter was not about ukuthwala and its place in our constitutional democracy, but about whether the state had shown that the accused had committed the offences he was charged with and, if so, whether he acted with the knowledge of wrongfulness and the required intent. The court held that child-trafficking and any form of abuse or exploitation of minors for sexual purposes is not tolerated in South Africa’s constitutional dispensation. Furthermore, it ruled that the appellant could not rely on traditional ukuthwala as justification for his conduct because practices associated with an aberrant form of ukuthwala could not secure protection under the law. Thus, the Court could not find that he did not traffic the complainant for sexual purposes or that he had committed the rapes without the required intention ̶ even on the rather precarious grounds of appellant’s assertion that his belief in the aberrant form of ukuthwala constituted a 'traditional' custom of his community.
Die appêlant is skuldig bevind in 'n streek magistraat hof op een geval van mensehandel, drie gevalle van verkragting, een geval van aanranding met die opset om ernstige liggaamlike skade te berokken en een geval van algemene aanranding teen ’n 14 jarige skoolmeisie met wie hy getroud is volgens die gebruiklike huwelikswette. Nadat sy weggehardloop het van die appèllant, het die appèllant die klaer per taxi na Kaapstad geneem waar hulle by die broer van die appellant en sy vrou gewoon het. Daar het die voorval van verkragting en aanranding gebeur. Die appèllant het as verdediging en op gronde van ’n appel beweer dat die sogenaamde verkragting plaas gevind het binne konteks van ’n gebruiklike gerëelde huwelik of ‘ ukuthwala’. Volgens kundige getuienis was ukuthwala ’n onreëlmatige vorm om ’n gebruilike huwelik te begin. Kenners meen dat ukuthwala in sy traditionele vorm, konsensueel en onskuldig was maar dat daar ’n afwykende vorm bestaan waarin jong meisies ontvoer en dikwels verkrag en geslaan is om hulle tot die huwelik te dwing. Die landdros het gesê dat die aangeleedheid nie oor ukuthwala en die plek daarvan in ons grondwettige demokratse gaan nie maar wel of die staat bewys het dat die beskuldigde die misdrywe gepleeg het waarvoor hy aangekla is en indien wel, of hy opgetree het met die wete van onregmatigheid en die vereiste opset(intent). Die hof het beslis dat mensenhandel of uitbuiting van minderjariges vir seksuele doeleindes nie geduld word in Suid-Afrika se gondwetlike bedeling nie. Verder het dit beslis dat die appèllant nie op die tradisionele ukuthwala kon staatmaak as regsverdediging vir sy optrede nie omdat prakyke wat verband hou met ’n afwykende vorm van ukuthwala nie beskerming onder die wet verkry nie. Die Hof kon dus nie bevind dat hy die klaer nie vir mensenhandel met seksuele doeleindes gebruik het nie en dat hy die verkragtings sonder die verwagte intensie gepleeg het nie - selfs op die taamlike onveilige gronde van die bewering van die appellant dat sy geloof in die afwykende vorm van ukuthwala, ’n tradisionele gewoonte in sy gemeenskap is.
Levenstein v. Frankel Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2018)
The case was initially brought to the High Court by individuals who had suffered childhood sexual molestation by the deceased, a prominent financier and philanthropist, in the 1970s and ‘80s. The applicants were unable to pursue criminal charges due of the effect of s18(f) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1997, which imposed a 20-year statute of limitations for most sexual offences (excluding rape, sexual trafficking, and using a child or a mentally disabled person for pornographic purposes). However, the High Court found s18(f) to be unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court affirmed, removing the statute of limitations for prosecuting all sexual offences.
Die saak is aanvanklik in die 1970’s en 80’s deur die oorledene, ’n prominente finansierder en filantroop, na die hooggeregshof gebring deur individue wat seksueel gemolesteer is in hul kinderjare. Die applikante kon nie strafregtelike klagtes nastreef nie weens die effek van artikel 18 (f) van die Strafproseswet 1997, wat ’n 20 jarige beperkingsbepaling opgelê het vir die meeste seksuele misdrywe (uitgesuit verkragting, seksuele handel en die gebruik van ’n kind of n verstandelik gestremde persoon vir pornografiese doeleindes). Die hooggeregshof het egter bevind dat s18 (f) ongrondwetlik is. Die konstitusionele hof het bevestig en die statuut van beperkings op die vervolging van alle seksuele misdrywe verwyder.
De Lange v. Presiding Bishop of the Methodist Church of South Africa for the Time Being (Voortsittende Biskop van die Metodiste kerk van Suid Afrika vir tyd en wyl) Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2015)
After a Methodist Church minister (applicant) announced to her congregation her intention to marry her same-sex partner, the Methodist Church (respondent) suspended and subsequently discontinued her role as an ordained minister in early 2010. In March 2010, the applicant referred the matter to arbitration according to the Laws and Discipline of the Church. The parties could not agree on the applicant’s procedural rights and the arbitration convener proceeded with the process as provided by the Laws and Discipline of the Church. On her behalf, the convener then entered into a final agreement with the Church in May 2011. In 2012, the applicant approached the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town seeking an order to set aside the arbitration agreement in terms of the Arbitration Act. She contended that she was unfairly discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation. The High Court held that the applicant had not shown good cause to set aside the arbitration agreement. She then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The majority judgment of that Court agreed with the finding of the High Court. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court. In a unanimous judgment, the Constitutional Court made four findings. First, the applicant had not shown good cause to set aside the arbitration agreement. Because the issue related to interpretation of religious doctrine, arbitration would be the appropriate forum. Second, since the applicant had unequivocally disavowed her unfair discrimination claim before the High Court, she was not free to raise the claim for the first time on appeal. Third, pursuant to the principle of constitutional subsidiarity, the applicant should have first brought her unfair discrimination claim to the Equality Court. Finally, the applicant failed to file a notice in terms of the Uniform Rules of the High Court, an omission that deprived other interested parties including religious communities of the opportunity to intervene as parties to the dispute or seek admission as amicus curiae in the High Court. The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Nadat ’n predikant van die Metodiste Kerk (applikant) aan haar gemeente aangekondig het dat sy van voorneme is om met haar maat van dieselfde geslag te trou, het die Metodiste Kerk (respondent) vroeg in 2010 haar rol as ’n geordende predikant opgeskort en daarna gestaak. In Maart 2010 het die applikant die saak na arbitrasie verwys volgens die Wette en Dissipline van die Kerk. Die partye kon nie saamstem oor die prosedurele regte van die applikant nie en die arbitrasie- sameroeper het voortgegaan met die proses soos bepaal deur die Wette en Dissipline van die Kerk. Die sameroeper het namens haar in Mei 2011 ’n finale ooreenkoms aangegaan met die Kerk. In 2012 het die applikant die Wes-Kaapse hooggeregshof, Kaapstad, genader om ’n bevel aan te vra om die arbitrasie ooreenkoms ingevolge die Wet op Arbitrasie tersyde te stel. Sy het aangevoer dat daar onbillik teen haar gediskrimineer word op grond van haar seksuele oriëntasie. Die Hooggeregshof het beslis dat die applikant nie goeie rede vir die arbitrasie-ooreenkoms getoon het nie. Sy het toe appél aangeteken by die Hoogste Hof van Appèl. Die meerderheidsuitspraak van daardie Hof het saam gestem met die bevinding van die Hooggeregshof. Die applikant het verlof gevra om tot die Konstitusionele Hof te appelleer. In ’n eenparige uitspraak het die Konstitusionele Hof vier bevindings gemaak. Eerstens het die applikant nie goeie gronde getoon om die arbitrasie-ooreenkoms ter syde te stel nie. Omdat dit die kwessie rakende die interpretasie van godsdienstige leerstellings is, sou arbitrasie die gepaste forum wees. Tweedens, aangesien die applikant haar onbillike diskriminasie-eis voor die hooggeregshof onomwonde verwerp het, was sy nie vry om die eis vir die eerste keer op appèl aanhandig te maak nie. Derdens moes die applikant volgens die beginsel van grondwettige subsidiariteit haar eis op onbillike diskriminasie eers by die gelykheidshof ingedien het. Uiteidelik het die applikant versuim om ’n kennisgewing in te dien ingevolge die eenvormige Reëls van die Hooggeregshof, ’n versuim wat ander belanghebbende partye, waaronder godsdienstige gemeensappe, die geleentheid ontneem het om as partye tot die geskil in te gryp of om toelating as amicus curiae in die Hooggeregshof te verkry. Die hof het die appèl gevolglik van die hand gewys.
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Justice (Nasionale Koalisie vir Gay en Lesbiese Gelykheid v Minister van Justisie) Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (1998)
The case concerned a referral for confirmation to the Constitutional Court of an order made by the Witwatersrand High Court. The referral sought to affirm that the following laws are unconstitutional and invalid (a) the common law offence of sodomy, and (b) the inclusion of sodomy in schedules to, inter alia, the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which prohibits sexual conduct between men in certain circumstances. Although technically the Constitutional Court only had to decide on the constitutionality of the inclusion of sodomy in the schedules and of the section of the Sexual Offences Act, it could not do so without also considering the constitutionality of sodomy as a common law offence. The Constitutional Court found that the offences, all aimed at prohibiting sexual intimacy between gay men, violated the right to equality by unfairly discriminating against gay men on the basis of sexual orientation. Such discrimination is presumed to be unfair since the Constitution expressly includes sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Die saak het betrekking op ’n verwysing ter bevestiging van die Konstitusionele Hof van ’n bevel wat deur die Witwatersrandse hooggeregshof gemaak. is. Met die verwysing word bevestig dat die volgende wette ongrondwetlik en ongeldig is (a) die gemeenregtelike misdryf van sodomie en (b) die insluiting van sodomie in skedules vir, inter alia, onder meer die Stafproseswet 51 van 1977, wat seksuele gedrag tussen mans in sekere omstandighede verbied. Alhoewel die Konstitusionele Hof slegs tegnies moes besluit oor die grondwetlikheid van die insluiting van sodomie in die skedules en die afdeling van die Wet op seksuele misdrywe, dit sou dit nie kon doen sonder om die grondwetlikheid van sodomie as ’n gemeenregtelike oortreding te beskou nie. Die konstitusionele hof het bevind dat die misdrywe wat daarop gemik is om seksuele intimiteit tussen homoseksuele mans te verbied, die reg op gelykheid geskend het deur op ’n onbillike wyse te diskrimineer teen homoseksuele mans op grond van seksuele oriëntatse. Daar word bevind dat die tipe diskriminasie onbillik is aangesien die Grondwet uitdruklik bepaal dat diskriminasie teen seksuele oriëntasie, verbode grond is.
Mgolozeli v. Gauteng Department of Finance Labour Court of South Africa (Arbeidshof van Suid Afrika) (2014)
The applicant, a male, applied for a senior managerial position previously occupied by a woman. After undergoing a psychometric assessment, he was recommended for appointment. The recommendation was turned down “due to the gender imbalance at SMS level”. The applicant claimed that he had been unfairly discriminated against on the basis of his sex because the target, set by the Gauteng Provincial Legislature, did not comply with the provisions of the Employment Equity Act (EEA), 55 of 1998. The respondent contended that, although it had not adopted an equity plan, it had set itself a target of 50% females in senior management positions. The Court noted that when the second respondent took the decision not to appoint the applicant, there was great confusion regarding the actual gender balance at the senior management level. However, the Court was prepared to accept that, at the time, females filled only 29% senior management posts. The EEA requires that equity plans must provide objectives for each year, their duration, and procedures for evaluating their implementation. The Court noted that, in SA Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard (Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union as amicus curiae [2014] 11 BLLR 1025 (CC)), the Constitutional Court had confirmed that competent courts must ensure that validly adopted equity plans are applied lawfully. Apart from the fact that the respondent had no plan, it had no mechanism to track the levels of gender representation. The second respondent had applied the target without considering the panel’s reasons for its recommendation. Affirmative action had been applied ad hoc, in a haphazard, arbitrary, and random manner. The responsible official had applied a quota system and raised an absolute barrier, both of which were impermissible. The affirmative action measure applied by the respondents conflicted with both the Constitution and the EEA. Accordingly, the measure had unfairly discriminated against the applicant. The respondents were directed to appoint the applicant to the post concerned and pay him compensation equal to the difference between the salary he had earned and the salary he should have earned, with retrospective effect.
Die applikant, 'n man, het aansoek gedoen vir 'n senior bestuurs-posisie wat voorheen deur 'n vrou beset was. Nadat hy 'n psigometriese assessering ondergaan het, is hy vir aanstelling aanbeveel. Die aanbeveling is afgekeur "as gevolg van die geslagswanbalans op SMS-vlak". Die applikant het daarop aanspraak gemaak dat hy op grond van sy geslag onregverdig gediskrimineer is omdat die teiken, wat deur die Gautengse Provinsiale Wetgewer gestel is, nie voldoen het aan die bepalings van die Wet op Gelyke Indiensneming (EEA), 55 van 1998 nie. Die respondent het beweer dat, hoewel dit nie 'n ekwiteitsplan aangeneem het nie, het dit 'n teiken van 50% vroue in senior bestuursposte gestel. Die Hof het opgemerk dat toe die tweede respondent die besluit geneem het om nie die applikant aan te stel nie, was daar groot verwarring oor die werklike geslagsbalans op die Senior bestuursvlak. Die hof was egter bereid om te aanvaar dat vrouens slegs 29% senior bestuursposte gevul het. Die EEA vereis dat ekwiteitsplanne doelwitte moet gee vir elke jaar, hulle duur en prosedures om die implementering daarvan te evalueer. Die Hof het opgemerk dat, in SA Polisiediens v Solidariteit nms Barnard (Polisie en Gevangenisse Burgerregte-Unie as amucus curiae [2014] 11 BLLR 1025 (CC)), het die Konstitusionele Hof bevestig dat bevoegde howe moet verseker dat aanvaarde ekwiteitsplanne wettig toegepas is. Afgesien van die feit dat die respondent geen plan gehad het nie, het dit geen meganisme gehad om die vlakke van geslagsverteenwoordiging op te spoor nie. Die tweede respondent het die teiken toegepas sonder om die paneel se redes vir die aanbeveling te oorweeg. Regstellende aksie is in 'n lukrake, arbitrêre, en willekeurige wyse toegepas. Die verantwoordelike amptenaar het 'n kwota-stelsel toegepas en 'n absolute versperring geopper wat albei ontoelaatbaar was. Die regstellende aksie maatreël wat deur die respondente toegepas is bots met beide die Grondwet en die EEA. Gevolglik het die maatreël teen die aansoeker onregverdig gediskrimineer. Die respondente is gerig om die aansoeker aan die betrokke pos toe te stel en vergoeding gelyk te skenk aan die verskil tussen die salaris wat hy verdien het en die salaris wat hy moes verdien het, met 'n terugwerkende effek.
Ekhamanzi Springs Ltd. v. Mnomiya Labor Appeal Court of South Africa (Arbeidsappèlhof van Suid Afrika) (2014)
The respondent was employed by the appellant to bottle Aquelle spring water. The appellant’s plant was located on property belonging to a religious mission, and to gain access to the workplace, the appellant’s employees had to cross the mission’s property. The mission’s security guards were instructed to bar entry to any persons who did not comply with its code of conduct; one provision, for example, prohibited “amorous relationships between any two persons outside of marriage”. The respondent and a colleague were denied access because they became pregnant outside of marriage. Consequently, the respondent and her colleague were not able to access the workplace, as they were refused access to the mission’s property. They were subsequently fired. The court ruled that the dismissal of the respondent employee was automatically unfair because she had been dismissed for her pregnancy. The court noted that all persons have a constitutional right to equality. Discriminatory dismissals, such as this one, are accordingly automatically unfair and higher compensation is allowed in such cases. Employers are obliged to avoid discriminating against employees directly or indirectly ̶ protection against being discriminated against on the ground of pregnancy is not a preserve of married women. An agreement that denies pregnant employees access to the workplace is accordingly prima facie unenforceable unless it can be justified on grounds consistent with constitutional norms. The mission’s code of conduct interfered with the employment relationship between the appellant and its employees and created a situation in which breaches could lead to dismissal. Such provisions blurred the line between the appellant’s terms and conditions of employment and the mission’s code. That the employee was not a party to the mission’s code proved decisive. As lessee, the appellant had legal remedies to compel the mission to allow full use and enjoyment of the leased property. The appellant’s faint plea of operational necessity could not serve as a defense because it had failed to exercise its rights as lessee to protect its pregnant employees. The employee had tendered her services, and the appellant’s refusal to accept the tender constituted a breach of contract. The court further held that the appellant’s acquiescence in the mission’s discriminatory practice of barring unwed pregnant women from the leased premises violated the appellant’s constitutional duty to treat its employees fairly and was a breach of its common law duty to accept the employees into service. The court, therefore, confirmed that the employee had been dismissed and that her dismissal was automatically unfair. The court also confirmed the remedy of 12 months’ compensation.
Die respondent is in die diens van die appêlant om Aquelle water te bottel. Die appêlant se aanleg was op eiendom wat aan 'n godsdienstige sending behoort, en om toegang tot die werksplek te verkry, moes die appêlant se werknemers die sending se eiendom oorsteek. Die sending se sekuriteitswagte is opdrag gegee om toegang te verbied aan enige persone wat nie aan hul gedragskode voldoen het nie; een bepaling, byvoorbeeld, het "verliefde verhoudings tussen enige twee persone buite die huwelik" verbied. Die respondent en 'n kollega is toegang geweier omdat hulle buite die huwelik swanger geraak het. Gevolglik was die respondent en haar kollega nie in staat om toegang tot die werksplek te verkry nie. Aangesien hulle toegang tot die missie se eiendom geweier is is hulle is daarna afgedank. Die hof het beslis dat die ontslag van die respondent werknemer outomaties onregverdig was omdat sy vir haar swangerskap ontslaan is. Die hof het kennis geneem dat alle persone 'n grondwetlike reg tot gelykheid het. Diskriminerende afdankings, soos hierdie een, is dienooreenkomstig outomaties onregverdig en hoër vergoeding word toegelaat in sulke gevalle. Werkgewers is verplig om te verhoed dat daar diskriminasie is teen werknemers, direk of indirek - beskerming teen diskriminasie op die grond van swangerskap is nie 'n bewaar van getroude vrouens nie. 'n ooreenkoms wat verwagtende werknemers se toegang tot die werksplek ontken is gevolglik prima facie-onafdwingbaar tensy dit geregverdig kan word op grond wat met grondwetlike norme bestaanbaar is. Die sending se gedragskode het met die werksverhouding tussen die appêlant en sy werknemers ingemeng en 'n situasie geskep waarin oortredings tot ontslag kan lei. Sodanige bepalings vervaag die lyn tussen die appêlant se bepalings en voorwaardes van indiensneming en die sending se kode. Dat die werknemer nie 'n party tot die sending se kode was nie, was beslissend. As huurder het die appêlant regsmiddels gehad om die sending te dwing om volle gebruik en genot van die gehuurde eiendom toe te laat. Die appêlant se dowwe pleidooi van operasionele noodsaaklikheid kon nie dien as 'n verdediging nie omdat dit versuim het om sy regte as huurder om sy swanger werknemers te beskerm uit te oefen. Die werknemer het haar dienste aangebied, en die appêlant se weiering om die aanbod te aanvaar het 'n skending van die kontrak saamgestel. Die hof het verder bevind dat die appêlant se vrywaring in die diskriminerende praktyk van die missie om ongewenste swanger vroue van die gehuurde perseel te belet. Die appellant se grondwetlike plig om sy werknemers billik te behandel is geskend en dat dit ‘n oortreding van sy gemeenregtelike plig was om die werknemers in diens te neem. Die hof het dus bevestig dat die werknemer ontslaan is en dat haar ontslag outomaties onregverdig was. Die hof het ook die regsmiddel van 12 maande se vergoeding bevestig.
South African Police Service v. Barnard Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitutionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2014)
The South African Police Service (“SAPS”) had adopted the Employment Equity Plan (“EEP”), which sets numerical goals to produce gender and racial diversity. The appellant, Ms. Barnard, applied twice for a position in the National Evaluation Service of the SAPS in 2005. Despite being shortlisted, interviewed, and recommended as the best-suited candidate, she did not get the position on either occasion. This case concerns her second attempt, where the National Commissioner did not appoint Ms. Barnard on the grounds that it would not enhance racial representation at that salary level and that it was not necessary to fill the vacancy immediately because the post was not critical. While the Labor Court found that SAPS had unfairly discriminated against the appellant, the Labor Appeal Court found in favor of SAPS. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) reversed the Labor Appeal Court’s decision and held that Ms. Barnard had been the victim of unfair discrimination on the basis of race, in violation of Section 9(3) of the Constitution and Section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act (the Act). The Constitutional Court granted SAPS leave to appeal and unanimously reversed the SCA’s ruling in favor of Ms. Barnard. As the Court noted, the SCA found that SAPS had failed to rebut the presumption that the discrimination against Ms. Barnard was unfair. But, since the EEP was a valid affirmative action measure, the issue was not whether the Plan could overcome such presumption, but whether the decision the National Commissioner made under it was open to challenge. The Court found that the Commissioner properly exercised his discretion. Appointing Ms. Barnard would have aggravated the overrepresentation of white women at that salary level. And, the decision did not bar Ms. Barnard from future promotions.
Die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens ("SAPD") het die Indiensnemingsplan ("EHOU") aangeneem, wat numeriese doelwitte stel om geslags-en rassediversiteit te produseer. Die appêlant, Me. Barnard, het twee keer aansoek gedoen vir 'n pos in die Nasionale Evalueringsdiens van die SAPD in 2005. Ten spyte van op die kortlys wees, ondervra, en aanbeveel as die beste geskik kandidaat, het sy nie die posisie op beide geleenthede gekry nie. Hierdie saak gaan oor haar tweede poging, waar die Nasionale Kommissaris nie Me. Barnard aangestel het nie op die grond dat dit nie rasseverteenwoordiging op daardie salarisvlak sou verbeter nie en dat dit nie nodig was om die vakature onmiddellik te vul nie omdat die pos nie krities was nie. Terwyl die Arbeidshof bevind het dat SAPD teen die appêlant onbillik gediskrimineer het, het die Arbeidsappèlhof ten gunste van die SAPD bevind. Op verdere appèl het die Hoogste Hof van Appèl ("SCA") die Arbeidsappèlhof se besluit omgekeer en gehou dat Me. Barnard die slagoffer van onbillike diskriminasie op grond van ras was, in die skending van artikel 9(3) van die Grondwet en artikel 6(1) van die Wet op Billike Werksgeleenthede (die Wet). Die Konstitusionele Hof het die SAPD laat appelleer en die SCA se beslissing ten gunste van Me. Barnard omgekeer. Soos die Hof opgemerk het, het die SCA bevind dat die SAPD versuim het om die vermoede dat die diskriminasie teen Me. Barnard onregverdig was te weerlê. Maar aangesien die EHOU 'n geldige regstellende aksieplan was, was die kwessie nie of die plan so 'n vermoede kon oorkom nie, maar of die Nasionale Kommissaris se besluit daaronder oop was om te daag. Die hof het bevind dat die Kommissaris sy diskresie behoorlik uitgeoefen het. Die aanstelling van Me. Barnard sou die oorverteenwoordiging van wit vroue op daardie salarisvlak vererger het. Die besluit het nie Me. Barnard van toekomstige promosies belet nie.
Gumede v. President of the Republic of South Africa & Others Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitutionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2008)
Mrs. and Mr. Gumede, both domiciled in KwaZulu-Natal, entered into a monogamous customary marriage in 1968 and four children were born during their marriage. Because she was forbidden by her husband to take up employment, Mrs. Gumede never worked and could not contribute to the accumulation of the family’s estate, which included two family homes. She was always the primary caregiver of the children. After forty years, the marriage broke down irretrievably. Mrs. Gumede had no family and was dependent for financial support upon her children and her old-age pension. In 2003, Mr. Gumede instituted divorce proceedings before the Divorce Court. Mrs. Gumede also approached the High Court and obtained an order invalidating the discriminatory legislative provisions on which the Divorce Court could rely. The Constitutional Court subsequently was approached by the Minister of Home Affairs and the KwaZulu-Natal Member of the Executive Council for Traditional Leaders and Local Government Affairs who resisted the order, for the reevaluation of the order of the High Court declaring constitutionally invalid certain sections of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, of the KwaZulu Act on the Code of Zulu Law 16 of 1985 and certain sections of the Natal Code of Zulu Law (Proc R155 of 1987), which regulate the proprietary consequences of customary marriages. In a lengthy judgment, the Constitutional Court took great pains to explain that any distinction between the consequences of customary marriages entered into before and after the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act came into operation is discriminatory, inconsistent with the Constitution, and invalid. The Constitutional Court noted the international instruments that South Africa has ratified that prohibit forms of discrimination against women, including CEDAW. It held that the two provisions are patently discriminatory, unfair, and not justifiable. In terms of the judgment, all monogamous customary marriages entered into before the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act came into operation are now ipso facto in community of property, excluding customary marriages which had been terminated by death or by divorce before the date of the judgment. The Constitutional Court further held that the constitutional invalidity of Section 7(1) was limited to monogamous marriages and should not concern polygynous relationships or their proprietary consequences, determining that polygynous marriages should continue to be “regulated by customary law until parliament intervenes.”
Mev. en Mnr. Gumede, beide in KwaZulu-Natal gedomisilieer, het 'n monogame huwelik in 1968 aangegaan en vier kinders is tydens hulle huwelik gebore. Omdat sy deur haar man verbied is om te werk, het Mev. Gumede nog nooit gewerk nie en kon nie bydra tot die bydrae van die familie se boedel nie, wat twee familie-huise ingesluit het. Sy was altyd die primêre versorger van die kinders. Na veertig jaar het die huwelik onherstelbaar verbrokkel. Mev. Gumede het geen familie gehad nie en was afhanklik van finansiële steun van haar kinders en haar pensioen. In 2003 het Mnr. Gumede egskeiding verrigtinge voor die Egskeidingshof ingestel. Mev. Gumede het ook die Hooggeregshof genader en 'n bevel verkry wat die diskriminerende wetgewende bepalings waarop die Egskeidingshof op kon staatmaak, ongeldig maak. Die Konstitusionele Hof is vervolgens deur die Minister van Binnelandse Sake en die KwaZulu-Natal lid van die Uitvoerende Raad vir Tradisionele Leiers en Plaaslikeregeringsake wat die bevel teengestaan het, vir die herevaluering van die bevel van die Hooggeregs Hof wat sekere afdelings van die Wet op die Erkenning van Gebruiklike Huwelike, van die KwaZulu- Wet op die wet op Zoeloe Wetgewing 16 van 1985 en sekere afdelings van die Natalse wet op Zulu regte (B.proc R155 of 1987), wat die gevolge van gebruiklike huwelike reguleer, ongrondwetlik verklaar het. In 'n lang uitspraak het die Konstitusionele Hof baie moeite gedoen om te verduidelik dat enige onderskeid tussen die gevolge van gebruiklike huwelike wat voor en na die inwerkingtreding van die Wet op Erkenning van Gebruiklike huwelike aangegaaan is, diskriminerend, strydig is met die Grondwet en ongeldig is. Die Konstitusionele Hof het kennis geneem van die internasionale instrumente wat Suid-Afrika bekragtig het wat vorme van diskriminasie teen vroue verbied, insluitend CEDAW. Dit het beslis dat die twee bepalings oorwegend patriminerend, onbillik en nie regverdigbaar is nie. Ingevolge die uitspraak is alle monoggame gebruiklike huwelike aangegaan voor die Erkenning van Gebruiklike Huwelike Wet in werking gekom het, tree nou ipso facto binne gemeenskap vangoedere op, uitsluitend gebruiklike huwelike wat beëindig is deur die dood of deur egskeiding voor die datum van die vonnis. Die Konstitusionele Hof het verder bevind dat die grondwetlike ongeldigheid van artikel 7(1) beperk was tot monogame huwelike en behoort nie poligame huwelike of hul eie gevolge te bemoei nie, met die bepaling dat poligame huwelike steeds gereguleer word deur gewoontereg totdat die Parlement ingryp.
Jan Oompie Kolea v. The State Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (Hoogste Hof van Appèl van Suid Afrika) (2012)
The appellant was convicted of repeatedly raping a woman with another man and sentenced to 15 years in prison under s 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (the Act). When the appellant appealed the ruling and the sentence it was found that his conviction should in fact be read under s 51(1) of the Act which imposes a minimum sentence of life in prison when the victim was raped more than once by more than one person. He was duly sentenced to life in prison and his appeal was dismissed. This case broke a previous trend of judges neglecting to impose life sentences under s 51(1), instead giving lighter sentences under s 51(2) even in the case of multiple rapes. The real threat of life imprisonment is a crucial precedent to set in South Africa, where rape is common and often overlooked or punished with leniency.
Mnr. Kolea is skuldig bevind dat hy herhaaldelik 'n vrou met 'n ander man verkrag het en vir 15 jaar in die tronk onder s 51(2) van die Wet op Strafreg 105 van 1997 (die Wet) gevonnis is. Toe Mnr. Kolea die beslissing en die vonnis appelleer is daar bevind dat sy skuldigbevinding in werklikheid gelees moet word onder s 51(1) van die Wet wat 'n minimum vonnis van die lewenslange tronkstraf opgelê het toe die slagoffer meer as een keer verkrag is deur meer as een persoon. Kolea is behoorlik gevonnis tot lewenslange tronkstraf en sy appèl is geweier. Hierdie saak het 'n vorige tendens van regters gebreek om lewenslange vonnisse te verwaarloos onder s 51 (1), en in plaas daarvan ligter vonisse onder s 51 (2) te gee, selfs in die geval van meervoudige verkragtings. Die werklike bedreiging van die lewenslange gevangenisstraf is 'n deurslaggewende presedent wat in Suid-Afrika voorgetstel word, waar verkragting algemeen voorkom en dikwels misken word.
M. v. The State Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (Hoogste Hof van Appèl van Suid Afrika) (2013)
A man in South Africa was convicted of raping his adopted daughter over the course of a sexually abusive relationship that lasted several years and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The judge overruled claims that the victim had given consent, holding that the victim’s lack of resistance did not qualify as active consent. Furthermore, the judge held that that the perpetrator had knowingly employed sexual grooming techniques to leverage the victim into sexual acts. In refuting the perpetrator’s claims that he believed the victim to be consenting, the judge in this case took an important step in defending victim’s rights and acknowledging the complicated power dynamics that often underlie sexual crimes. This case opens the path for victims of similarly complex patterns of sexual abuse to come forward and claim their rights, providing vital recourse for the many victims of sexual crimes in South Africa.
'n man in Suid-Afrika is skuldig bevind aan die verkragting van sy aangenome dogter oor die verloop van 'n seksueel beledigende verhouding wat 'n paar jaar geduur het en was tot 15 jaar in die tronk gevonnis. Die regter het die beweerings dat die slagoffer toestemming gegee het, van die hand gewys en gesê dat die slagoffer se gebrek aan weerstand nie as aktiewe toestemming kwalifiseer nie. Verder het die regter ook bevind dat die oortreder willens en wetens seksuele versorging tegnieke gebruik om die slagoffer in seksuele dade te hefboom. In die weerlê van die oortreder se eise dat hy geglo het dat die slagoffer toestemming gegee het, het die regter in hierdie geval 'n belangrike stap ter verdediging van slagoffers se regte geneem en het erkenning gegee aan die ingewikkelde krag dinamika wat dikwels agter seksuele misdade lê. Hierdie saak maak die pad oop vir slagoffers van soortgelyke komplekse patrone van seksuele mishandeling om vorentoe te kom en aanspraak te maak op hul regte, wat belangrike beroep bied vir die talle slagoffers van seksuele misdade in Suid-Afrika.
Minister of Safety and Security v. Katise Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (Hoogste Hof van Appèl van Suid Afrika) (2013)
Mr. Katise was arrested when police were called to his home and found that he had attacked his wife. Charges for domestic violence under South Africa’s Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 were eventually repealed and after suing for unlawful arrest and detention on the grounds that there was no warrant for his arrest, Mr. Katise was awarded damages. In an appeal, the judge overturned this ruling, citing s 40(1)(q) of the Criminal Procedure Act which allows peace officers to arrest anyone reasonably suspected of violating the Domestic Violence Act of 1998. The judge in this case took an important stand against leniency on domestic violence cases, giving peace officers far more latitude to protect the rights of women and furthering the protection of women’s rights in South Africa, a country marred by sexual violence.
Mnr. Katise is gearresteer toe die polisie na sy huis geroep is en gevind het dat hy sy vrou aangeval het. Klagtes vir huishoudelike geweld onder Suid-Afrika se Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld 116 van 1998 is uiteindelik herroep nadat hy gedagvaar het vir onregmatige arrestasie en aanhouding op grond daarvan dat daar geen lasbrief vir sy inhegtenisneming was nie, is Mnr. Katiseer skadevergoeding toegeken. In 'n appèl het die regter hierdie beslissing omgekeer, met verwysing na 40(1)(q) van die Strafproseswet wat toelaat dat vredebeamptes enige iemand wat redelikerwys verdink word van die oortreding van die Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld van 1998 gearresteer mag word. Die regter het in hierdie geval 'n belangrike standpunt ingeneem teen die toegeeflikheid van sake rakende gesinsgeweld, wat vredebeamptes baie meer ruimte gee om die regte van vroue te beskerm en die beskerming van vroue se regte in Suid-Afrika te bevorder, in 'n land wat deur seksuele geweld gekenmerk word.
Incorporated Law Society v. Wookey, 1912 AD 623 Appellant Division (Appêlant Afdeling) (1912)
A firm of attorneys was willing to enroll Madeline Wookey as an articled clerk, but Wookey met with opposition from the Cape Law Society, which refused to register her articles. Wookey submitted an application to the Cape Supreme Court, which ordered the Society to register her. The Law Society appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, arguing that Wookey could not be admitted as an attorney because she was a woman. The Appellate Division was called upon to decide whether the term “persons” used in the statute governing admission of attorneys to the bar included only “male persons” or also included women. They determined that “persons” included only male persons, thus excluding women from the legal profession.
'n Prokureurs firma was bereid om Madeline Wookey as 'n geartikelde klerk in te skryf, maar Wookey het teenkanting van die Kaapse Regsvereniging ontvang, wat geweier het om haar artikels te registreer. Wookey het 'n aansoek by die Kaapse Hooggeregshof ingedien, wat die Vereniging beveel het om haar te registreer. Die Regsvereniging het hierdie besluit aan die Appel-afdeling beroep en geargumenteer dat die Wookey nie as 'n prokureur toegelaat kon word nie omdat sy 'n vrou is. Die Appélaat Afdeling was ontbied om te besluit of die term "persone" wat in die statuut wat die toelating van prokureurs tot die balie hanteer slegs "manlike persone" insluit het of ook vroue ingesluit het. Hulle het vasgestel dat "persone" slegs manlike persone ingesluit het, en het dus vroue by die regsprofessie uitgesluit.
Schlesin v. Incorporated Law Society, 1909 TSC 363. Transvaal Supreme Court (Transvaal Hoofgeregs Hof) (1909)
In 1909, Judge Bristowe of the Transvaal Supreme Court presided over Schlesin v. Incorporated Law Society, the first case in South Africa to consider whether women had a right to enter the legal profession. The Transvaal Supreme Court held that women were barred from admission to legal practice based on historical practice in South Africa, Holland, and England. Judge Bristowe explained that the Interpretation of Laws Proclamation 15 of 1902 provided that “words of the masculine gender shall include females…unless contrary intention appears” and found that given long historical practice, it was evident that contrary intention did indeed appear in the legislation governing admission to the bar.
In 1909 het Regter Bristowe van die Transvaal se Hooggeregs Hof oor Schlesin v. Geinkorporeerde Regsvereniging voorgesit. Die hof het beslis dat vroue toegang tot die regspraktyk verbied word op grond van die historiese praktyk in Suid-Afrika, Holland en Engeland. Regter Bristowe het verduidelik dat die interpretasie van Wette- Proklamasie 15 van 1902 met dien verstande dat "woorde van die manlike geslag, vroulikes sal insluit ... tensy daar ‘n teenstrydige bedoeling is" en het gevind dat die gegewe lang historiese praktyke, was dit duidelik dat ‘n teenstrydige voorneme inderdaad verskyn in die wetgewing wat toelating tot die balie toelaat.
Omar v. Government of the RSA Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitutionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2006)
The Durban Magistrate's Court issued a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 prohibiting Mr. Omar from abusing his wife, Ms. Joolab, and their children. When Mr. Omar allegedly breached the terms of that order, the warrant was executed but was subsequently suspended. He applied to the High Court alleging that section 8 of the Act was unconstitutional and the application was dismissed. On appeal, the Court held that section 8 does not violate the rights of access to the courts and serves to provide a mechanism to ensure compliance with protection orders and protect complainants against further domestic violence.
Die Durban Landdroshof het 'n beskermingsbevel uitgereik kragtens die Wet op huishoudelike geweld 116 van 1998 wat Mnr. Omar verbied om sy vrou, Me. Joolab, en hulle kinders, te mishandel. Toe Mnr. Omar na bewering die bepalings van daardie bevel oortree het, is die lasbrief uitgevoer, maar is daarna opgeskort. Hy het aansoek gedoen by die Hooggeregshof om te beweer dat artikel 8 van die Wet ongrondwetlik is en die aansoek van die hand gewys is. Die appèl het op appeèl beslis dat artikel 8 nie die regte van toegang tot die howe skend nie en dat dit dien om ‘n meganisme te bied om die nakoming van beskermingsvebele te verseker en om klaers teen verdere huishoudelike geweld te beskerm
State v. Baloyi Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitutionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2000)
An army officer was convicted for breaching an interdict issued by a magistrate ordering him not to assault his wife or prevent her or their child from leaving their home. He appealed to the Transvaal High Court which declared that Section 3(5) of the Prevention of Family Violence Act was unconstitutional to the extent that it placed the burden on him to disprove his guilt. The Constitutional Court overturned the High Court's judgment, finding that the purpose of an interdict was to protect the victim of domestic violence and indicate that society would not stand by in the face of spousal abuse. As such, fairness to the complainant required that the enquiry proceedings be speedy and dispense with the normal process of charge and plea, but in fairness to the accused, the presumption of innocence would still apply to the summary enquiry.
'n Weermag beampte is skuldig bevind aan die oortreding van 'n interdik wat deur 'n landdros uitgereik is, wat hom beveel het om nie sy vrou aan te val of te verhoed dat sy of hul kind hul huis verlaat nie. Hy het appèl aangeteken by die Transvaal se Hooggeregshof wat verklaar het dat artikel 3(5) van die Wet op die Voorkoming van Gesinsgeweld ongrondwetlik was in die mate dat dit die las op hom geplaas het om sy skuld te weerlê. Die Konstitusionele Hof het die uitspraak van die Hooggeregshof omgekeer en gevind dat die doel van 'n interdik was om die slagoffer van huishoudelike geweld te beskerm en te kenne te gee dat die samelewing nie die mishandeling van ‘n huweliksmaat sou bystaan nie. As sodanig het billikheid teenoor die klaer vereis dat die ondersoekverrigtinge vinnig moes verloop en met die normale proses van aanklag en pleit afgehandel word, maar in billikheid teenoor die beskuldigde, sal die vermoede van onskuld steeds van toepassing wees op die ondersoek.
State v. Engelbrecht High Court of South Africa (Hooggeregshof van Suid Afrika) (2003)
In determining sentencing for a woman convicted of murdering her spouse, expert testimony regarding battered woman syndrome is more relevant to the sentencing decision than to the assessment of the legality of the defendant's actions. The court reviewed a line of cases involving women convicted of murdering their abusive partners. Although the court cited a variety of mitigating factors that should be considered (e.g., the sustained nature of the abusive conduct, the presence of children in the home,etc.), it held that foremost is the actual effect sustained domestic violence has on women. As a result, the court found expert testimony confirming that the defendant suffered form the syndrome to be a "substantial and compelling" reason to suspend the defendant's sentence.
By die bepaling van vonnisoplegging vir 'n vrou wat skuldig bevind is aan die moord op haar eggenoot, is kundige getuienis rakende die mishandelende vroue sindroom meer relevant op die vonnisoplegging as die beoordeling van die wettigheid van die verweerder se optrede. Die hof het 'n reeks sake ondersoek waar vroue skuldig bevind is aan die moord op hul geweldadige eggenote. Alhoewel die hof 'n verskeidenheid versagtende faktore noem wat in ag geneem moet word (soos die volgehoue aard van die misbruik, die teenwoordigheid van kinders in die huis, ens.), het hy beslis dat die belangrikste effek is, is die gevolg wat huishoudelike geweld op vroue het. As gevolg hiervan het die hof genoegsame getuienis gevind wat bevestig dat die verweerder gely het aan die sindroom gevind as 'n "wesenlike en dwingende" rede om die vonnis van die verweerder op te skort.
State v. Ferreira and Others Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2004)
The appellant, convicted of hiring two workers to kill her abusive husband, argued for a reduced sentence. The court held that a lesser sentence is permitted only when there are "truly convincing" circumstances or where a life sentence is disproportionate or unjust. Expert testimony regarding battering and its effects showed how her behavior fit a well-known pattern for abused women. The court found this testimony convincing and held that the appellant's use of third parties to kill her husband did not invalidate her claim to be a victim of battering. Additionally, the court held that appellant's failure to testify should have no effect on her credibility. The court reduced her sentence but declined to acquit the appellant because of the premeditated nature of the act.
Die appellant, wat skuldig bevind is aan die huur van twee werkers om haar geweldadige man dood te maak, het aangevoer vir 'n verlaagde vonnis. Die hof het beslis dat 'n verlaagde vonnis slegs toegelaat word as daar 'werklik oortuigende' omstandighede is, of as 'n lewenslange vonnis buite verhouding of onregverdig is. 'n Getuienis van kundiges rakende die geweld en die gevolge daarvan het getoon hoe haar gedrag pas by 'n bekende patroon vir mishandelde vroue. Die hof het bevind dat hierdie getuienis oortuigend was en het bevind dat die applikant se gebruik van derde partye om haar man te vermoor nie die feit ongeldig gemaak dat sy ‘n slagoffer van geweld is nie. Verder het die hof beslis dat haar versuim om te getuig geen effek op haar geloofwaardigheid moes hê nie. Die hof het haar vonnis verminder, maar het geweier om die applikant vry te laat weens die voorbedagte aard van die handeling.
Carmichele v. Minister of Safety and Security Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2001)
The applicant was sexually assaulted by a man who was awaiting trial for the attempted rape of another woman. Despite the seriousness of the alleged crime and the fact that the man had a prior rape conviction, the police and prosecutor had recommended that the man be released pending trial. The applicant sued the Minister for damages, arguing that the police and prosecutors had negligently failed to comply with a legal duty they owed to her to take steps to prevent the man from causing her harm. The High Court dismissed the applicant's claim and the Supreme Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the police and prosecution did not owe her a duty of protection. On appeal, the Constitutional Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and remanded the case to the High Court for trial. It held that the State is obligated by the Constitution and international law to protect the dignity and security of women and in the circumstances, the police recommendation for the assailant's release could amount to wrongful conduct giving rise to liability. The Court also held that prosecutors, who are under a duty to place before the court any information relevant to the refusal or grant of bail, may be held liable for negligently failing to fulfill that duty.
Die applikant is seksueel aangerand deur 'n man wat verhoorafwagtend was weens die poging tot verkragting van 'n ander vrou. Ondanks die erns van die beweerde misdaad en die feit dat die man 'n vorige skuldigbevinding aan verkragting gehad het, het die polisie en aanklaer aanbeveel dat die man vrygelaat word afhangende verhoor. Die applikant het die Minister vir skadevergoeding gedagvaar, met die argument dat die polisie en aanklaers hul plig versuim het en nalatig was om stappe te doen om te voorkom dat die man haar skade berokken. Dit was hul wettige plig wat hul aan haar verskuldig was om stappe te doen om te voorkom dat die man haar skade berokken. Die Hooggeregshof het die aansoeker se eis van die hand gewys en die Hoogste Appèlhof het bevestig dat die polisie en aanklaers nie 'n beskermings plig aan haar verskuldig is nie. Op appèl het die Konstitusionele Hof die bevele van die laer howe tersyde gestel en die saak weer aan die hooggeregshof voorgelê. Daar is van mening dat die staat deur die Grondwet en die internasionale reg verplig is om die waardigheid en sekuriteit van vroue te beskerm, en in die omstandighede kan die polisie se aanbeveling vir die vrylating van die aanvaller neerkom op onregmatige optrede wat hul aanspreeklikheid tot gevolg het. Die Hof het ook bevind dat aanklaers wat onder die plig is om inligting rakende die weiering of toestaan van borgtog voor die hof te plaas, aanspreeklik gehou kan word vir nalatige versuim om daardie plig na te kom.
State. v. Jackson Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (1998)
The appellant, a 24-year-old police officer at the time of the charged conduct, was convicted of the attempted rape of a 17-year-old girl. She fought him off and managed to escape the car. The examining physician found some evidence of unlubricated sexual contact, but no conclusive evidence of penetration. He appealed on the grounds of the cautionary rule, encouraging the court to handle accusations of rape cautiously to prevent false convictions. The Court held that the cautionary rule was based on outdated stereotypes against women and that in criminal cases, the burden is on the State to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, without an application of a general cautionary rule. The Court adopted the formula used in England whereby a judge could choose, on a case by case basis, to use caution only in cases where it was proven that the complainant was untrustworthy for some reason, e.g. had made previous false complaints or bore the defendant a grudge.
Jackson is aangekla van poging tot verkragting van S., 'n 17-jarige meisie, toe hy haar polse vasgebind het en gepoog het om met haar gemeenskap te hê. Sy het hom afgeveg en daarin geslaag om uit die motor te ontsnap en is daarna deur 'n dokter ondersoek wat bewyse van ongeoorloofde seksuele kontak gevind het, maar geen geweldige bewys van penetrasie nie. Jackson het appèl aangeteken op grond van die versigtigheidsreël en aangemoedig dat beskuldigings van verkragting versigtig hanteer moet word om vals skuldigbevindings te voorkom. Die hof het beslis dat die versigtigheidsreël gebaseer is op verouderde stereotipes teen vroue en dat in strafregtelike gevalle dit die las van die Staat is om die skuld van die beskuldigde bo alle redelike twyfel te bewys sonder die toepassing van 'n algemene versigtigheidsreël. Die Hof het die formule wat in Engeland gebruik is aanvaar waardeur 'n regter, van geval tot geval, kon kies om versigtig te wees in gevalle waar daar bewys is dat die klaer om een of ander rede onbetroubaar was, bv. het vorige vals klagtes gemaak of teen die verweerder 'n wrok gehad het.
Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v. Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Others Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2009)
Two men convicted of child rape challenged the constitutionality of the Sexual Offenses Act's amendments to the existing Criminal Procedure Act (CPA). The amendments permit child victims and witnesses of sexual offenses to participate in modified court proceedings to facilitate testimony. The lower court declared the amendments to the CPA constitutionally invalid. The Constitutional Court reversed the ruling, holding that (1) courts must inquire into the need to appoint an intermediary in sexual offense trials whenever children are expected to testify, regardless of whether the state raises the issue; (2) courts may exercise discretion whether to hold proceedings in camera; and (3) courts must give reasons for refusing to allow the use of intermediaries or other safeguards.
Twee mans wat skuldig bevind is aan verkragting van kinders het die grondwetlikheid van die wysigings van die Wet op Seksuele Misdrywe betwis teen die bestaande Strafproseswet (CPA). Met die wysigings kan kinderslagoffers en getuies van seksuele misdrywe deelneem aan gewysigde hofverrigtinge om getuienis te vergemaklik. Die laer hof het die wysigings aan die CPA konstitusioneel ongeldig verklaar. Die konstitusionele hof het die beslissing omgekeer en gesê dat (1) howe moet ondersoek instel na die behoefte om 'n tussenganger in seksuele misdrywe aan te stel wanneer daar van kinders verwag word om te getuig, ongeag of die staat die saak aan die order stel; (2) howe mag diskresie uitoefen of hulle verrigtinge in camera moet hou; en (3) howe moet redes gee vir die weiering om die gebruik van tussengangers of ander voorsorgmaatreëls, toe te laat.
State. v. J.M. Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2002)
The appellant, M., was tried before a regional magistrate for the rape of his six-year-old daughter during 1989. He was convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment, which he appealed. The Court held that, especially given the age of the complainant at the time, the question of a consensual sexual relationship is moot and further stipulated that the sexual history of the complainant is not relevant in a charge of rape, unless the Court specifically judges it to be so.
Die appellant, M., is voor 'n streeklanddros verhoor weens die verkragting van sy sesjarige dogter gedurende 1989. Hy is skuldig bevind en gevonnis tot tien jaar gevangenisstraf, waarop hy appèl aangeteken het. Die hof het beslis dat die vraag na 'n konsensuele seksuele verhouding, veral gegewe die ouderdom van die klaagster destyds, verkeerd is en verder bepaal dat die seksuele geskiedenis van die klaer nie relevant is op 'n aanklag van verkragting nie, tensy die hof dit spesifiek beoordeel om so te wees.
Egglestone v. The State Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2008)
A high school teenage girl from an impoverished neighborhood consented to undergo job training as a receptionist at the appellant's escort agency. She alleged that during her training, the appellant held her against her will, and raped and sexually assaulted her. The appellant argued that his conviction should be overturned because the victim had consented. The court dismissed the kidnapping charges, but upheld the rape and sexual assault charges. The court acknowledged that although the victim consented to parts of the training (i.e. wearing lingerie and taking up residence at the employer's compound), she did not consent to sexual intercourse with the appellant. The court also noted that because of the appellant's age (twice that of the victim) and his promise of employment, he exercised a dominant position over the victim that made it difficult for her to refuse his advances.
'n Tienermeisie op hoërskool uit 'n verarmde woonbuurt het toegestem dat sy as ontvangsdame by die escort-agentskap van die appellant werksopleiding sal kry.. Sy beweer dat appellant haar tydens haar opleiding teen haar wil vasgehou het, en haar verkrag en seksueel aangerand het. Die appellant het aangevoer dat sy skuldigbevinding omgekeer moet word omdat die slagoffer toestemming gegee het. Die hof het die aanklagte van ontvoering van die hand gewys, maar die aanklagte van verkragting en seksuele aanranding bevestig. Die hof het erken dat hoewel die slagoffer toestemming gegee het vir dele van die opleiding (d.w.s. om onderklere aan te trek en in die werkgewer se verblyf in te woon), sy nie tot seksuele omgang met die appellant toestem het nie. Die hof het ook opgemerk dat weens die ouderdom van die appellant (twee keer die van die slagoffer) en sy belofte vir indiensneming ,'n dominante posisie oor die slagoffer uitgeoefen het, wat dit vir haar moeilik gemaak het om sy aanvoeringe te weier.
State. v. Mahomotsa Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2002)
The accused was charged and convicted on two separate counts of rape for raping two 15-year-old girls more than once and sentenced to six years imprisonment for the first count and 10 years imprisonment for the second. On appeal, the defense argued that the sentence was too severe because of mitigating circumstances, specifically that the victims did not suffer serious physical or psychological injuries and that both victims had previously been sexually active. The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the sentences were, in fact, too lenient, especially as the victims' previous sexual history was irrelevant and also that the extent of harm to the victims matters less because rape is a basic violation of dignity. The sentence was increased to 8 years for the first count and 12 years for the second.
Die beskuldigdes is op twee afsonderlike aanklagtes van verkragting aangekla en skuldig bevind vir die verkragting van twee 15-jarige meisies meer as een keer en gevonnis tot ses jaar gevangenisstraf op die eerste en tien jaar gevangenisstraf op die tweede. Op appèl het die verdediging gesê dat die vonnis te ernstig was weens versagtende omstandighede deurdat die slagoffers nie ernstige liggaamlike of sielkundige beserings opgedoen het nie en dat albei die slagoffers voorheen seksueel aktief was. Die hof het die appèl van die hand gewys en beslis dat die vonnisse in werklikheid te versagtend was, veral omdat die vorige seksuele geskiedenis van die slagoffers nie van belang was nie en dat die skade aan die slagoffers minder belangrik is omdat verkragting 'n basiese waardigheidskending is. Die vonnis is verhoog tot 8 jaar vir die eerste en 12 jaar vir die tweede.
K. v. Ministry of Safety and Security Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2005)
K. sued to recover damages from the Minister of Safety and Security from being raped and assaulted by three uniformed and on-duty police sergeants. The High Court held that the actions of the police officers fell out of the scope of their employment and that the Minister could not be held vicariously liable for their conduct. The Court held that although the police officers' actions were obviously a clear deviation from their duty, there was a sufficiently close relationship between their employment and the wrongful conduct to hold the Minister liable.
K. het gedagvaar om skadevergoeding van die Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit te verhaal as gevolg van haar verkragting en aanranding deur drie aan-diens en polisie-sersante met hul univorms aan. Die hooggeregshof het beslis dat die optrede van die polisiebeamptes buite die bestek van hul indiensneming val en dat die Minister nie middellik aanspreeklik gehou kan word vir hul optrede nie. Die Hof het beslis dat, hoewel die optrede van die polisiebeamptes uiteraard 'n duidelike afwyking van hul plig was, daar 'n voldoende noue verband bestaan tussen hul indiensneming en die onregmatige optrede om die Minister aanspreeklik te hou.
SONKE Gender Justice Network v. Malema Equality Court for the District of Johannesburg (Gelykheidshof vir die Distrik Johannesburg) (2009)
The respondent made comments at a political rally regarding the consent of the complainant in Jacob Zuma's rape trial. Specifically, he opined that a rape victim would leave early in the morning, but the complainant in this case had stayed for breakfast and requested money for a taxi. The plaintiff, a gender justice organization, sued him for hate speech, unfair discrimination, and harassment of women. The court found that the respondent's comments were based on prohibited grounds as outlined in South Africa's Equality Act, specifically sex and gender. The court also found the comments expressed by the respondent constituted "generalizations about women, rape, and consent which reinforce[d] rape myths." Moreover, the respondent's words suggested "that men need not obtain explicit [sexual] consent from women." The court found the respondent liable for hate speech and harassment. For these reasons, the court concluded the respondent infringed the rights of women and ordered him to pay a fine and make a public apology.
Die respondent het tydens 'n politieke saamtrek kommentaar gelewer rakende die toestemming van die klaer in die verkragtingsverhoor van Jacob Zuma. Spesifiek het hy gesê dat 'n verkragtingslagoffer vroegoggend sou vertrek, maar die klaer het in hierdie geval vir ontbyt gebly en geld gevra vir 'n taxi. Die eiser, 'n organisasie vir geslagsregverdigheid, het hom gedagvaar vir haatspraak, onbillike diskriminasie en teistering van vroue. Die hof het bevind dat die kommentaar van die respondent gebaseer is op verbode gronde soos uiteengesit in die Suid-Afrikaanse Wet op Gelykheid, spesifiek seks en geslag. Die hof het ook bevind dat die opmerkings deur die respondent uitgespreek 'veralgemenings oor vroue, verkragting en toestemming wat verkragtingsmites versterk'. Verder het die respondent se woorde voorgestel "dat mans nie eksplisiete [seksuele] toestemming van vroue hoef te verkry nie." Die hof het bevind dat die respondent aanspreeklik is vir haatspraak en teistering. Om hierdie redes het die hof tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die respondent die regte van vroue geskend het en hom beveel het om 'n boete te betaal en 'n openbare verskoning te doen.
Masiya v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Pretoria) Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2007)
The appellant was charged with the rape of a nine-year-old girl. At trial, evidence demonstrated that he had penetrated the girl anally, which required a conviction for indecent assault rather than rape. The High Court, however, amended the common law definition of rape to include anal penetration as well and made the definition gender-neutral. The appellant appealed. The Constitutional Court affirmed the High Court and held that the definition of rape must be extended to include nonconsensual anal penetration of females; the Court did say that for the court to extend the definition to include male rape would encroach onto the legislature's prerogative.
Die appellant is aangekla van die verkragting van 'n negejarige meisie; tydens die verhoor het getuienis uitgekom dat hy die meisie anaal binnegedring het, wat 'n skuldigbevinding vir onsedelike aanranding eerder as verkragting vereis het. Die Hooggeregshof het egter die gemeenregtelike definisie van verkragting gewysig om ook anale penetrasie in te sluit en die definisie geslagsneutraal gemaak. Die appellant het appèl aangeteken. Die Konstitusionele Hof het met die Hooggeregshof bevestig en beslis dat die definisie van verkragting uitgebrei moet word om anale indringing sonder toestemming van vroue in te sluit; die hof het wel gesê dat vir die hof om die definisie uit te brei om ook manlike verkragting in te sluit sou die regspraak van die wetgewer oorskry.
V. v. Minister of Safety and Security Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2002)
The appellant was assaulted, raped, and robbed by Andre Gregory Mohamed, who had escaped from prison where he was facing 22 charges for indecent assault, rape and armed robbery. The appellant sued the State for damages, arguing that the police owed her a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent Mohamed from escaping and causing her harm and that they had negligently failed to comply with such duty. The Constitutional Court applied its recent holding in Carmichele v. Minister of Safety and Security, finding that the state is obliged both by the Constitution and by international law to protect women from violence. Thus, the police should be held liable for their negligence in not taking reasonable action to prevent Mohamed's escape, especially in light of the fact that they knew that Mohamed was a dangerous serial rapist who was likely to commit further offenses against women should he escape. The court affirmed the state's liability for any damages suffered by the applicant.
Die appellant is aangerand, verkrag en beroof deur Andre Gregory Mohamed, wat uit die tronk ontsnap het waar hy op 22 aanklagte teregstaan vir onsedelike aanranding, verkragting en gewapende roof. Die appellant het die Staat vir skadevergoeding gedagvaar, met die argument dat die polisie is aan haar 'n wettiglike verpligting skuldig om redelike stappe te neem om te verhoed dat Mohamed ontsnap en haar skade te berokken en dat hulle nalatig was en versuim het om aan hierdie plig te voldoen. Die Konstitusionele Hof het hul onlangse beslissing in Carmichele v. Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit toegepas en het bevind dat die staat deur die Grondwet sowel as die internasionale reg verplig is om vroue teen geweld te beskerm, en die polisie moet aanspreeklik gehou word vir die nalatigheid daarvan deur hul nie redelike stappe te doen het om die ontsnapping van Mohamed te voorkom nie, veral in die lig van die feit dat hulle geweet het dat Mohamed 'n gevaarlike reeksverkragter is wat waarskynlik verdere misdrywe teen vroue sou pleeg as hy sou ontsnap. Die Hof het die staat se aanspreeklikheid bevestig vir enige skade wat die applikant gely het.
Media 24 Ltd. & Another v. Grobler Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2005)
The respondent won a judgment against the appellant for 13 by a manager trainee employed by the appellant. On appeal the appellant claimed (1) it could not be held liable for its employee's actions that occurred off work premises, (2) it had no knowledge of the harassment incidences, and (3) the employee was not acting within the scope of employment. The court held that employers have a legal duty to protect their employees from physical and psychological harm caused by co-employees.
Die respondent het 'n vonnis teen die appellant vir 13 gewen deur 'n bestuurder-leerling in diens van die appellant. Op appèl het die appellant beweer dat (1) dit nie aanspreeklik gehou kan word vir die optrede van sy werknemer wat nie op die perseel plaasgevind het nie, (2) hy het geen kennis van die voorvalle van teistering gehad nie, en (3) die werknemer het nie binne die omvang van indiensneming opgetree nie . Die hof het beslis dat werkgewers 'n wetlike plig het om hul werknemers te beskerm teen fisiese en sielkundige skade wat medewerkers veroorsaak.
Van Zijl v. Hoogenhout Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (Hoogste Hof van Appèl van Suid Afrika) (2004)
The appellant suffered years of sexual abuse by her uncle, the respondent, during her childhood. She sued him for damages at the age of 48 and the respondent claimed that her suit should have been brought within one year of her attaining her majority. The Court held that the victim of sexual abuse as a child who only in adulthood acquired an appreciation of the responsibility of the abuser for the abuse may sue the abuser within three years of acquiring that appreciation.
Die appêlant het jare se seksuele mishandeling deur haar oom, die respondent, tydens haar kinderdae gely. Sy het hom gedagvaar vir skadevergoeding op die ouderdom van 48 en die respondent het beweer dat sy haar saak binne een jaar van haar mondigwording moes gebring het. Die hof het beslis dat die slagoffer van seksuele mishandeling as kind wat slegs in volwassenheid 'n gewaarwording vir die verantwoordelikheid van die molesteerder vir die misbruik verkry het. Die gemolesteerde kan binne drie jaar van die gewaarwording (bewuswording), die molesteerder dagvaar.
W.N. v. The State Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (Hoogste Hof van Appèl van Suid Afrika) (2008)
The appellant, a minor, was sentenced to 10 years for the rape of a fellow classmate and appeals his sentence on the grounds that it was too excessive. The lower court sentenced the appellant-defendant to direct imprisonment rather than probation after hearing testimony about the appellant's unrepentant nature and lack of parental supervision. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that correctional supervision would have lacked the appropriate punitive impact demanded by the offense and deterrent effect.
Die appêlant, 'n minderjarige, is tot 10 jaar gevonnis vir die verkragting van 'n mede-klasmaat enappelleer sy vonnis op grond daarvan dat dit te buitensporig was.. Die laer hof het die appêllant-verweerder tot direkte gevangenisstraf eerder as proeftydperk gevonnis nadat hy getuienis aangehoor het oor die onbekwame aard van die appellant en die gebrek aan ouerlike toesig. Die hoogste hof van appèl het die beslissing bekragtig en gevind dat korrektiewe toesig die toepaslike strafversagtende impak sou hê as afskrikmiddel-effek vereis word.
Legislation
The Criminal Procedure Second Amendment (Act 85 of 1997) (1997)
This Act amends the Criminal Procedure Act of 1997 and provides for the further regulation of detention and bail of those who are arrested. The Act substitutes subsection 11(b) of §60 of the original Act, tightening bail conditions for schedule 5 crimes, which includes rape. The substituted section holds that the court must order an accused to be detained in custody until they are dealt with in accordance with law, unless the accused can offer sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that they should be released in the interests of justice.
Commission on Gender Equality Amendment (Act 17 of 2013) (2013)
This Act amends the Commission on Gender Equality Act of 1996 to align with the Constitution. The Preamble in the Act substitutes the Preamble of the 1996 Act, and holds that §181 and item 20(2) of Schedule 6 to the Constitution provides for the continued existence of the Commission for Gender Equality ("the Commission"). Furthermore, it outlines the purpose of the Commission, which is to promote respect for gender equality and the protection, development, and attainment of gender equality. Among the Commission’s powers outlined in the Act is its power to monitor, investigate, research, educate, lobby, advise, and report on issues concerning gender equality. All its powers and functions are to be prescribed by national legislation.
The Act recognizes customary marriages solemnized in accordance with customary law. Customary law is defined as, “the customs and usages traditionally observed among the indigenous African peoples of South Africa and which form part of the culture of those peoples.” Both monogamous and polygamous marriages are recognized under the Act. Although registration of a customary marriage is peremptory, a failure to register a customary marriage does not affect the validity of that marriage. The definition of customary law in this Act does not apply to Hindu and Muslim customary marriages.
Die Wet op Erkenning van Gebruiklike Huwelike (1998)
Egskeiding en ontbinding van huwelik
Die Wet erken gebruiklike huwelike wat in gewoontereg voltrek word. Gewoontereg word beskou as “Die gewoontes en gebruike wat tradisioneel onder die inheemse bevolkingsgroepe van Suid-Afrika nagekom word en wat deel vorm van die kultuur van daardie bevolkingsgroepe.” Beide monogame en poligiene gebruiklike huwelike word erken onder die wet. Alhoewel registrasie van ‘n gebruiklike huwelik bindend is, sal versuiming om dit te registreer nie die geldigheid van die huwelik affekteer nie. Hindoe en Moslem gebruiklike huwelike val nie onder die definisie van gewoontereg vir dié wet nie.
Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act (2013)
The Act defines and prohibits human trafficking. The PCTP Act adopts a broad definition of human trafficking, namely, that a person is guilty of human trafficking if he or she delivers, recruits, transports, transfers, harbours, sells, exchanges, leases or receives another person, through various means, including the use of force, deception, or coercion, aimed at the person or an immediate family member for the purpose of exploitation. Furthermore, a person who adopts a child, facilitated or secured through legal or illegal means; or concludes a forced marriage with another person, for the purposes of exploitation of that child or person, is guilty of an offence. The PCTP Act criminalizes various acts that constitute or relate to trafficking in persons and imposes harsh penalties, including life imprisonment for trafficking in persons; 15 years’ imprisonment for engaging in conduct that causes a person to enter into debt bondage or benefiting from services of a trafficking victim; and 10 years’ imprisonment for facilitating trafficking. The PCTP Act also provides for severe fines and enables the state to confiscate the assets of traffickers.
Die Wet op Voorkoming en Bestryding van Handel in Persone (2013)
Gedwonge en minderjarige huwelike, seksuele geweld en verkragting, statutêre verkragting of besoedeling, mensehandel
Die Wet definieer en verbied mensehandel. Die Wet aanvaar ‘n wye definisie van mensehandel, naamlik dat ‘n persoon skuldig is aan mensehandel indien hy of sy betrokke is by die werwing, vervoer, verskuiwing, huisvesting of ontvang van persone of gebruik van dreigemente, geweld of ander vorme van dwang, teen ‘n persoon of familielid met die doel van uitbuiting. Verder, ‘n persoon wat ‘n kind aanneem deur wettig of onwettige middele te gebruik; of ‘n gedwonge troue af te dwing met ‘n ander persoon, met die doel om uitbuiting van die kind of persoon, is skuldig aan ‘n oortreding. Die Wet kriminaliseer verskeie dade wat bestaan uit of verband hou met mensehandel, en dit stel swaar strafmaatrëels daar, insluitend lewenslange tronkstraf vir mensehandel; 15 jaar tronkstraf vir gedrag wat lei tot die skuldigbevinding van ‘n persoon wat betrokke was en voordeel trek uit die dienste van ‘n mensehandel slagoffer; en 10 jaar tronkstraf vir die fasilitering van mensehandel. Die Wet maak ook voorsiening vir strawwe boetes en gee die staat die reg om bates van mensehandelaars te konfiskeer.
Reform of Customary Law of Succession and Regulation of Related Matters Act 11 (2009)
The Act abolishes the customary rule of primogeniture in as far as it applies to the law of succession and further extends the application of the Intestate Succession Act to the deceased estates of Africans who die intestate (without a will) and provides guidelines for interpreting the Intestate Succession Act in order to give effect to the new provisions and to ensure the protection of the rights of women to inherit.
Die Wet op Hervorming van die Gewoontereg van Opvolging en Regulering van Verwante Aangeleenthede 11 (2009)
Geslags diskriminasie, Skadelike traditionele gebruike, Eiendom en erfenisregte
Die Wet skaf die gebruiklike rëel van primogeniture af vir sover dit van toepassing is op die erfreg en brei die toepassing van de Wet op Intestate Opvolging verder uit op die afgestorwe boedels van Afrikane wat intestaat sterf (sonder ‘n testament) en bevat riglyne vir die inerpretasie van die Intestate Opvolgingswet om uitvoering te gee aan die nuwe bepalings en om die beskerming van die regte van vroue om te erf te verseker.
Section 51 of the Act provides for certain mandatory sentences and sentencing guidelines which a regional court or high court may impose and consider for, inter alia, rape and compelled rape (minimum sentences may be reduced for compelling and substantial circumstances). The Act specifically provides that when considering imposing a sentence in respect of the offence of rape, a court must not consider the following circumstances as constituting compelling circumstances to deviate from the minimum sentencing guidelines: the complainant’s sexual history, lack of physical injury, culture or religious beliefs of accused or any relationship of the parties prior to assault.
Kriminele Wet Wysigings Wet 105 (1997)
Seksuele geweld en verkragting
Artikel 51 van die Wet bepaal vir sekere verpligte vonnisse en vonnisriglyne wat 'n streekhof of hooggeregshof mag oplê en oorweeg vir, onder andere, verkragting en dwangverkragting (minimum vonnise kan verminder word vir dwingende en wesinglikke omstandighede Die Wet bepaal spesifiek dat ‘n hof nie die volgende omstandighede as dwangende omstandighede moet oorweeg om ‘n vonnis vir die misdryf van verkragting op te le nie, maar moet afwyk van die minimum riglyne vir vonnis oplegging: die seksuele geskiedenis van die klaer, ‘n gebrek aan liggaamlike besering, kultuur of godsdienstige oortuigings van beskuldigdes of enige verhouding van die partye voor aanranding.
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 (2007)
The Act was adopted to comprehensively and extensively deal with all sexual offences under a single statute. The act, inter alia, repeals the common law offences of rape and replaces it with an expanded definition of rape applicable to all form of sexual penetration without consent irrespective of gender and repeals other common law offences related to indecent assault and penetration and replaces them with broader statutory offences.
Kriminele Wet (Seksuele Misdrywe en Verwante Aangeleenthede) Wysigings Wet 32 (2007)
Seksuele geweld en verkragting
Die Wet is aangeneem om alle seksuele misdrywe onder 'n enkele wet volledig en omvattend te hanteer. Die Wet, onder andere, herroep die gemeenregtelike misdrywe van verkragting en vervang dit met 'n uitgebreide definisie van verkragting wat van toepassing is op alle vorme van seksuele penetrasie sonder toestemming, ongeag geslag, en herroep ander gemeenregtelike oortredings wat verband hou met onsedelike aanranding en penetrasie en vervang dit met breër statutêre misdrywe.
Sexual Offences Act (1998)
The Sexual Offences Act recognizes in its preamble that women are particularly vulnerable to becoming victims of sexual offences, particularly adult prostitution. The Act prohibits prostitution, the operation of brothels, and other activities related to prostitution and brothel-keeping.
Seksuele Oortredings Wet (1998)
Seksuele teistering, Seksuele geweld en verkragting, Mensehandel
Die Seksuele Oortredings Wet erken in die aanhef dat vrouens veral kwesbaar is om slagoffers te word vir seksuele misdrywe, veral volwassenes prostitusie. Die Wet verbied prostitusie, die bedryf van bordele, en ander aktiwiteite wat verband hou met prostitusie en bordeelhouding.
Domestic Violence Act and the Domestic Violence Regulations (1999)
The Domestic Violence Act and the Domestic Violence Regulations promulgated thereunder offer complainants (any person in a domestic relationship who alleges she/he is the subject of domestic violence, including a child in the care of the complainant) the maximum protection possible from domestic abuse by imposing obligations on the police and other organs of state to prevent and assist the elimination of domestic violence (defined as including, inter alia, sexual abuse, physical abuse, stalking and harassment). Persons deemed to be in a domestic relationship include, inter alia, persons married by any law or custom, persons living (or who recently lived) together, parents of a child and parties in a romantic or sexual relationship. The Act allows any complainant to obtain a protection order against a respondent by application to the court and allows for interim orders to be granted without the respondent having received notice of such application in certain circumstances. When granting a protection order the court must make an order for the arrest of the respondent and may make an order to confiscate any weapons in the respondent’s possession.
Wet op Gesinsgeweld en die Regulasies vir Gesinsgeweld (1999)
Gesinsgeweld en intieme maatskaplike geweld
Die Wet op Gesinsgeweld en die regulasies daarvan uitgevaardig bied klaers (enige persoon in ‘n huishoudelike verhouding wat beweer dat hy of sy die onderwerp is aan huishoudelike geweld, insluitend ‘n kind in die sorg van die klaer) die hoogste moontlike beskerming teen huishoudelike geweld aan deur verpligtinge op te lê aan die polisie en ander staatsorganisasies om die uitskakeling van huishoudelike geweld te voorkom (omskryf as, onder andere, seksuele mishandeling, fisiese mishandeling, agtervolging en teistering.) Persone wat geag word om ‘n huishoudelike verhouding te hê is, onder andere, persone wat getroud is volgens enige wet of gewoonte, persone wat saamwoon (of wat onlangs saam gewoon het), ouers van ‘n kind en partye in ‘n romantiese of seksuele verhouding. Die Wet laat enige klaer toe om ‘n beskermingsbevel teen ‘n respondent te kry deur aansoek by die hof en laat toe in sekere omstandighede dat tussentydse bevele toegestaan kan word sonder dat die respondent kennis gegee word vir sodanige aansoeke. By die toestaan van 'n beskermingsbevel moet die hof 'n bevel maak vir die inhegtenisneming van die respondent en kan 'n opdrag gee om enige wapens in die respondent se besit te konfiskeer.
Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (2000)
The purpose of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act is to give effect to section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, read in conjunction with item 23(1) of its sixth schedule. The effect of this is to prevent and prohibit unfair discrimination and harassment; to promote equality and eliminate unfair discrimination; to prevent and prohibit hate speech; and to provide for matters connected therewith. Section 8 expands on the provisions of Section 9 by setting out, without limitation, the following specific examples of such prohibited discrimination: (a) gender-based violence; (b) female genital mutilation; (c) the system of preventing women from inheriting family property; (d) any practice, including traditional, customary or religious practice, which impairs the dignity of women and undermines equality between women and men, including the undermining of the dignity and well-being of the girl child; (e) any policy or conduct that unfairly limits access of women to land rights, finance, and other resources; (f) discrimination on the ground of pregnancy; (g) limiting women’s access to social services or benefits, such as health education and social security; (h) the denial of access to opportunities, including access to services or contractual opportunities for rendering services for consideration, or failing to take steps to reasonably accommodate the needs of such persons; and (i) systemic inequality of access to opportunities by women as a result of the sexual division of labor. The Act further regulates which party will bear the burden of proof in discrimination cases and further sets out which factors should be taken into account in determining whether discrimination is fair or unfair.
Wet op die Bevordering van Gelykheid en die Voorkoming van Onbillike Diskriminasie (2000)
Diskriminasie op werksgeleenthede, verminking van vroulike geslagsorgane of sny van vroulike geslagsdele, geslagsdiskriminasie, geslagsgebaseerde geweld in die algemeen, skadelike tradisionele praktyke, regte op erf en erfenis, seksuele geweld en verkragting
Die doel van die Wet op die Bevordering van Gelykheid en die Voorkoming van Onbillike Diskriminasie is om uitvoering te gee aan artikel 9 van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid Afrika, in samewerking met artikel 23(1) van die Grondwet se sesde skedule. Die effek hiervan is om onbillike diskriminasie en teistering te voorkom en te verbied; om gelykheid te bevorder en onbillike diskriminasie uit te skakel; om haat-spraak te voorkom en te verbied; en om voorsiening te maak vir aangeleenthede wat daarmee verband hou. Artikel 8 brei die bepalings van Artikel 9 uit, sonder beperking, deur die volgende spesifieke voorbeelde van sodanige verbode diskriminasie uiteen te sit: (a) geslagsbaseerde geweld; (b) geslagtelike verminking van vroulike geslag; (c) die stelsel wat voorkoom dat vrouens familie-eiendom erf; (d) enige praktyk, met inbegrip van tradisionele, gebruiklike of godsdienstige praktyk, wat die waardigheid van vrouens belemmer en die gelykheid tussen vrouens en mans ondermyn, insluitend die ondermyning van die waardigheid en welstand van die meisie-kind; (e) enige beleid of optrede wat vrouens se toegang to grondreg, finansies en ander hulpbronne beperk; (f) diskriminasie op grond van swangerskap; (g) beperking van vrouens se toegang tot maatskaplike dienste of voordele soos gesondheidsopvoeding en sosiale sekuriteit; (h) die weierig van toegang tot geleenthede, insluitende toegang tot dienste of kontraktuele geleenthede vir die lewering van dienste vir oorweging, of versuim om stappe te neem om die behoeftes van sulke persone redelik te voorsien; en (i) sistematies ongelykheid van toegang tot geleenthede van vroue as gevolg van die seksuele verdeling van arbeid. Die Wet reguleer verder watter party die bewyslas in diskriminasiesake sal dra en lê verder uit watter faktore in ag geneem moet word by die bepaling of die diskriminasie billik of onbillik is.
Section 9 of the Constitution provides for the right to equality. Section 9(1) provides that "Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law." Section 9(3) states that "The State may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, color, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth". Section 9(4) provides that "No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination." Finally, subsection (5) provides that "Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair." This includes discrimination on the basis of gender, sex or pregnancy.
Die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid Afrika (1996)
Geslags diskriminasie
Artikel 9 van die Grondwet maak voorsiening vir die reg op gelykheid. Artikel 9(1) bepaal dat “Almal gelyk is voor die Wet en het die reg op gelyke beskerming en voordeel van die Wet”. Artikel 9(3) bepaal dat “die Staat nie onbillik direk of indirek mag diskrimineer teen iemand op een of meer gronde nie, insluitend ras, geslag, seksuele orientasie, swangerskap, huwelikstatus, etniese of sosiale oorsprong, kleur, ouderdom, gestremdheid, godsdiens, gewete, geloof, kultuur, taal en geboorte nie“. Artikel 9(4) bepaal dat “Geen persoon mag regstreeks of onregstreeks onbillik teen iemand diskrimineer op een of meer gronde ingevolge subartikel (3) nie. Nasionale wetgewing moet verorden word om onbillike diskriminasie te voorkom of te belet” Ten slotte bepaal subartikel (5) dat “ Diskriminasie op grond van een of meer van die gelystes in subartikel (3) onbillik is, tensy daar vasgestel word dat die diskriminasie wel billik is.” Dit sluit in diskriminasie op grond van geslag of swangerskap.
Memoranda
This memorandum provides a brief overview of the key statutes, cases, and legal arguments that sanctioned the exclusion of women from the bar and, by extension, the bench, in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and South Africa.
Hierdie memorandum bied 'n kort oorsig van die belangrikste wette, sake en regsargumente wat die uitsluiting van vroue van die bar en, ter aanvulling, van die raad in die Verenigde State van Amerika, die Verenigde Koninkryk en Suid-Afrika goedgekeur het.