‘Delayed justice' irks Pretoria GBV survivor
A Pretoria gender-based violence (GBV) victim said there was nothing to celebrate this Women's Month after the case against her cop ex-boyfriend was postponed again.
Yesterday, Izelle Venter had to face her alleged abuser, a Hawks officer, in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court in a case of assault which has been dragging on for five years.
She will have to return next month to hear if the new application to get a state witness to testify will be granted and if the case will be postponed again.
'One of the hardest things' – GBV victim testifying against ex
Venter describes testifying against her ex-boyfriend, Jacques Loock, a captain in the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, as one of the hardest things she had to do.
'It feels like the defence keeps on playing for time. Delayed justice is justice denied,' she said.
ALSO READ: Femicide horror as EC man kills wife and ex-girlfriend
After the attack in February 2019, Venter spent five days recovering in an intensive care unit and was booked off from work for another six weeks.
'It makes me incredibly sad, I am the victim, the state doesn't stand up for me. Instead it's just one delay after the next. The accused has more rights than the victim,' she said.
Venter, who attended the first court hearing in March 2019, said she has lost count of how many times the case has been delayed.
Lost count of how many times case was delayed
'Nobody takes the time to explain to me what's going on in court, it's just the accused this and the accused that,' she said.
Venter said the worst of it all was that she couldn't move on with her life or cut him out because the case was still ongoing.
ALSO READ: Mother arrested for allegedly choking baby to death
'For two months, everything is fine until the next court date, then I am traumatised again and then they postpone it again,' she said.
'It's not fair. How must I carry on with my life? I sit with the trauma, while he was promoted in the force.'
Venter said she is still terrified of her alleged attacker because she was close to him.
Still terrified of attacker
'Although it happened in 2019, when that man walked around that corner this morning, I couldn't face him. I am still scared of him,' she said.
Venter said there was no justice for GBV victims.
ALSO READ: Calls for justice after Mpumalanga man allegedly sets women alight
'Not once in the past six years did anyone look at my rights, not once. What's the point of going through all of this just to be disappointed,' she said.
Unchain Our Children founder Wayne van Onselen said they supported Venter in the presidential stance of zero tolerance against GBV, which the state and judiciary have made a mockery of.
'Five years on the roll, manipulation of the system and the only support given is from an NGO, GBV is out of control,' he said.
Court backlogs a nightmare for victims
Criminal law expert Cornelia van Graan said this matter was one of many and, daily, court cases are postponed for long periods. Backlogs at courts and procedural requirements were a nightmare for every victim.
'The court is bound by the victims charter which states that they have the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for dignity and privacy; the right to be attended to promptly and courteously; and treated with respect for your dignity and privacy by all members of any department, institution, agency or organisation or service provider.
ALSO READ: Join us in the fight against GBV
'The police [during the investigations], the prosecutors and court officials [during preparation for and during the trial proceedings] and all other service providers will take measures to minimise any inconvenience to you by, among others, conducting interviews with you in your language of choice and in private, if necessary,' she said.
Van Graan said these measures should prevent people from being subjected to secondary victimisation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
43 minutes ago
- IOL News
R3. 3m awarded to municipal manager amid VBS corruption scandal
The West Rand District Municipality must pay its former municipal manager R3.3 million for terminating his contract despite him facing corruption charges of unlawfully investing R347m of its funds with the VBS Mutual Bank. Image: West Rand District Municipality / Facebook Former West Rand District municipal manager Moroashike Mokoena is set to be paid nearly R3.3 million by the municipality for terminating his contract while facing corruption charges of unlawfully investing R347m with the VBS Mutual Bank. Mokoena, 64, along with former chief financial officer (CFO) Romeo Mohaudi and erstwhile income and expenditure manager Mzwandile Mkhize, were arrested in June 2021 by the Hawks. Mokoena faces charges of authorising the municipality to invest more than R347m with the now defunct financial institution and the approval of various investment policies from time to time in contravention of the Municipal Financial Management Act (MFMA). At the time, the Hawks stated that Mohaudi caused R50m to be invested with VBS in contravention of the MFMA and the investment policy adopted by the Merafong Local Municipality. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The elaborate scheme saw the senior managers allegedly facilitating the investments and receiving corrupt gratifications from VBS officials through motor vehicle finance and mortgage bond facilities, as well as several other payments. Mokoena and the other former officials were later released on R50,000 bail each by the Pretoria Specialised Commercial Crimes Court. Hawks spokesperson Colonel Katlego Mogale said the case will return to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, next month for the continuation of the trial. Earlier, the West Rand District Municipality had, through an October 2019 council resolution, suspended Mokoena for three months based on how he managed the appointment process for the CFO. In December 2019, an investigation commissioned by the municipality recommended that Mokoena face disciplinary action should it be established that his contract has not lapsed. The following month, the municipality informed Mokoena that his appointment had lapsed in terms of the Municipal Systems Act after accusing him of failing to sign his performance agreement within 60 days, and as a consequence, there was no valid and binding contract of employment. Mokoena then referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, and a certificate of outcome certifying the matter as unresolved was issued. He then approached the Labour Court in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, to review and set aside the council resolution and to declare the termination of employment invalid. The Labour Court found that the municipality's letter informing Mokoena that his contract, which ran from December 2016 to November 2021, had lapsed was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and facts. 'The applicant's (Mokoena's) contract of employment did not lapse as alleged. His contract of employment was therefore terminated by the first respondent (municipality), and that act of termination was invalid. Accordingly, the applicant's contract of employment remained extant (in existence) and he is therefore entitled to his declaratory relief,' Judge Molatelo Makhura ruled last month. The judge said that in the event that Mokoena's appointment lapsed, the municipality was duty-bound to allow him to show good cause, but failed to do so. Judge Makhura stated that he could not order Mokoena to resume his duties, and the municipality cannot be ordered to permit him to resume his duties because the fixed period has expired. He said the appropriate relief was the payment of Mokoena's remuneration for the remainder of his contract, between January 17, 2020 and November, 30 2021, which is an amount of just above R3.28m. 'The termination of the applicant's fixed-term contract of employment on January 17, 2020 is hereby declared invalid and/or void ab initio (from the beginning). 'It is declared that the fixed-term contract of employment between the applicant (Mokoena) and the first respondent (West Rand District Municipality) remained extant (in existence) and the applicant remained the first respondent's employee and municipal manager until 30 November 2021,' ordered Judge Makhura. Mokoena's successor as municipal manager, Elias Koloi, said he was on leave and undertook to delegate another official to respond, but no response was forthcoming. Abner Mabaso, Mokoena's legal representative, referred questions to the municipality.
The Citizen
5 hours ago
- The Citizen
Accused in murder case remains in custody as protesters demand justice
Angry Mamelodi residents, including representatives from different organisations, protested outside the Mamelodi Magistrate's Court on Wednesday, demanding justice for slain Sibongile Hadebe. This comes after Hadebe's body was found burnt on June 3 near her residence in Mamelodi East. The community has submitted a petition with over 600 signatures, demanding that bail not be granted to the accused. Thabang Mohlamuza, ANCYL Regional Tshwane deputy chairperson, said, 'We [are] gathered outside the court to support the late Sibongile Hadebe and her family. 'We signed a petition not only for Hadebe, but for all the women who might be victimised later by such people, who are [then] given bail. 'We are demanding justice in the name of Sibongile Hadebe, and we can't allow a situation whereby it is normal that Sibongile's name will be a statistic to the number of GBV in our society. '[By] picketing outside the court, we are saying that we are tired and no more shall it be a norm that women shall be killed by those who claim to love them. 'We are saying 'no more shall it be that families be shattered because of this evil called femicide', which is a pandemic in the entire nation.' Signs carried by picketers demanded that people accused in such cases should not be granted bail, as this sends a dangerous message to society. They also demanded that harsh sentences be given to those found guilty. 'If we are allowing criminals like this [to be] granted bail, we are saying women's lives do not matter. We are saying they should continue harming people,' Mohlamuza added. He pleaded with the courts to speed up the court proceedings, saying, 'justice delayed is justice denied.' Hadebe was reported missing at the Mamelodi Police Station after she was last seen on May 19. Her charred remains were found near her residence by her brother three days after she was reported missing, and her identity was then confirmed after DNA tests were performed by police. The accused, who has abandoned his bail application, is facing a charge of murder. The case was postponed to October 8 for further investigation. The picketers were pleased that the accused will remain in police custody, and feel that the only thing the court can do is give the Hadebe's family closure. ALSO READ: Man accused of murdering Eersterust woman he met online abandons bail bid Do you have more information about the story? Please send us an email to [email protected] or phone us on 083 625 4114. For free breaking and community news, visit Rekord's websites: Rekord East For more news and interesting articles, like Rekord on Facebook, follow us on Twitter or Instagram or TikTok.
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
Power, Proximity, and the Crisis in South Africa's Law Enforcement
Accused mastermind Katiso Molefe appears in the Alexandra Magistrates' Court amid allegations linking him to the murders of DJs and drug-related killings across Gauteng. Image: Simon Majadibodu/IOL Clyde N. S. Ramalaine South Africa's criminal justice system is buckling under the weight of unfolding revelations and mounting drama, this time drawing the spotlight to colourful businessman, self-styled philanthropist, and consultant Malcolm X. Former Hawks boss, General Godfrey Lebeya, and the controversial arrest of KT Molefe initially introduced an unnamed source who had made a critical phone call. That individual has since self-identified as Malcolm X. Molefe stands accused of orchestrating a series of killings, including those of Armand Swart and DJ Sumbody. What began as a forceful exposé by KZN Provincial Commissioner Lt. General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi has now spiralled into a case study of influence, access, and institutional compromise. At the heart of this saga lies not just the veracity of claims but the structural rot revealed through a cast of characters who blur the lines between private interest and public power. Into this ever-unfolding crisis emerges businessman Malcolm X, now in self-disclosure at the centre of a growing controversy following allegations that he contacted former Hawks boss General Godfrey Lebeya to confirm whether officers from the elite unit had been dispatched to the home of KT Molefe. Before emerging as a high-profile businessman, Malcolm X was introduced to South African public discourse against the backdrop of his turbulent years as a student at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). At Wits, he gained attention for his charismatic presence, populist rhetoric, and penchant for controversy. Though he initially showed promise, his student years were marked by personal instability, culminating in a reported attempted suicide, perhaps underscoring the psychological strain of navigating university life and complex social expectations. His later descent into more precarious criminal territory became evident when he was arrested alongside several police officers under murky circumstances involving abuse of power and alleged impersonation. On 23 October 2023, Malcolm X was arrested alongside three police officers on charges of corruption and extortion. They are accused of coercing a woman by threatening to arrest her and her son to pay R580,000 to avoid detention for purportedly forged passport stamps. Malcolm X is alleged to have acted as the middleman facilitating the bribe. The Hawks' Serious Corruption Unit arrested them following a joint investigation with the National Prosecuting Authority. The case, currently before the courts, was last postponed in July 2024, with Malcolm X out on bail. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading News24, on Friday, broke the story that a warrant of arrest had been issued against Malcolm X for failing to appear in court for the ongoing extortion trial scheduled for August 1, after he reportedly fell ill. This development casts further shadow on his credibility and amplifies the gravity of his involvement. While the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' remains a foundational pillar of any just society, and must rightly apply to Malcolm X, his arrest nonetheless exposes troubling dynamics within South Africa's governance and policing spheres. That an individual facing such serious allegations could simultaneously maintain access to the upper echelons of law enforcement and political elites forces a reckoning with how proximity to power can erode ideals of impartiality and accountability. This is not a judgment of guilt, but a reflection on the architecture of influence and the uncomfortable entanglement of those entrusted with public service. Institutional authority increasingly appears to be governed less by merit and integrity than by informal networks, favouring economies, and a culture where access supersedes accountability. Regardless of the legal outcome, the plausibility of such access calls into question the integrity of systems meant to be impartial and reveals how fragile the boundary remains between protector and perpetrator. What remains troubling and a cause for concern is how Malcolm X obtained direct access to the highest levels of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI). According to Lebeya, Malcolm X was regarded as an informant based on prior interactions. Malcolm X, however, categorically rejects this label, asserting that he met Lebeya only once, a meeting he claims to have documented with a photograph, which was also published in the ANG report. This contradiction introduces the first ambiguity surrounding his role and relationship with law enforcement. Secondly, Malcolm X remains vague about the identity of the individual who contacted him to intervene. He describes the person only as a 'longstanding client' for whom he offers unspecified 'consulting services,' offering no clarity on the nature of these services or how they qualify him to insert himself into sensitive police matters. He inconsistently refers to the client as KT Molefe's 'brother' and later as a close 'friend,' leaving the actual connection unclear. To explain the brother-friend conundrum, X resorts to philosophy in an attempt to deflect 702 anchor Manyatela's direct question. Thirdly, General Lebeya's version adds further complexity. He confirms receiving a call from someone, now known to be Malcolm X, inquiring about the presence of Hawks officers at a residence, and that the caller described Molefe as a 'friend.' Both Lebeya and X, however, vehemently deny any personal acquaintance with Molefe. Despite this, X claims to have driven to Molefe's residence after receiving the address from his client, where he reportedly encountered around 40 people and began questioning them about their affiliations. As for Lebeya, despite his knowledge of standard arrest procedures, which included the issuance of a warrant, he still chose to dispatch Hawks members to the scene. Why would Lebeya, a seasoned police officer and leader of the Hawks, engage in this? What compels him to be open to such action, especially given his familiarity with legal protocols? This conduct raises serious legal and ethical questions: By what authority did Malcolm X believe he could interfere in a police operation, particularly one involving a person he claims not to know? Fourthly, a report by Bianca Binase for Africa News Global notes: 'Malcolm X insisted that Mkhwanazi must have known it was him (X) who had called Lebeya, because he (X) made a call to Lebeya and put him on speakerphone while the team Mkhwanazi had sent to effect the arrest were listening.' X appears more than comfortable questioning on-duty officers about their directives. Why would he feel entitled to act this way? What informs his belief that he holds a rightful role in the arrest process, especially when he claims no connection to Molefe? Former head of the Hawks Lieutenant-General Godfrey Lebeya. Image: GCIS Ordinarily, police effecting an arrest at a private residence do so under the authority of a duly issued warrant. The existence of such a warrant provides them with legal standing, regardless of who is involved. If such a warrant were in place, on what grounds did Malcolm X believe he could question the arrest or its legitimacy? Interfering in the execution of a lawful arrest, especially by a party not directly involved, can constitute a criminal offence. A plausible explanation lies in Malcolm X's perceived or actual access to General Lebeya. This relationship, if exercised casually, raises concerns about privilege, institutional credibility, and the politicisation of law enforcement. In the fifth instance, Malcolm X admitted in an interview that he first tried to contact Minister Bheki Cele directly. When that failed, he called General Lebeya. This points to an extraordinary level of access to South Africa's security hierarchy. Malcolm X downplayed this by claiming such individuals are 'ordinary people' and thus accessible. Yet, this attempt to normalise access belies the larger implications. Pressed by a 702 radio anchor about WhatsApp conversations between himself and Lebeya, Malcolm X insisted these had nothing to do with KT Molefe. In the sixth instance, following Lebeya's public remarks, Malcolm X contacted him again to question why his name had not been disclosed. Lebeya cited the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), saying he needed Malcolm X's consent. Malcolm X then attempted to reach Mkhwanazi to "correct" what he saw as a misrepresentation—that Mkhwanazi knew it was he who contacted Lebeya. However, it appears no direct conversation between them occurred. Malcolm X later claimed that the idea of publicly naming himself as the caller originated with him and that he passed this suggestion to Kenny Kunene. He stated that he encouraged Kunene to break the story and identify him. Given Kunene's media interests, including Weekly Xposé, Africa News 24-7 (now Africa News Global), it is plausible he would seize such a story. Malcolm X's insistence on being recognised as the person who called Lebeya, and his later frustration at not being publicly acknowledged, suggests a deeper psychological and political dynamic: the performance of proximity to power. In South Africa, where access often masquerades as authority, Malcolm X seems to draw credibility from being seen as present and pivotal. His conduct points to a strategy of influence-as-performance, not merely to aid a legal process, but to establish indispensability. Being left unnamed is, for him, not protection but erasure. While it may be premature to draw definitive conclusions, the possibility that Malcolm X is leveraging this controversy for personal or reputational gain cannot be dismissed. His repeated statements that he would 'force his way' to testify before the Madlanga Commission suggest a fixation on visibility over accountability.
