Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 April 2025 | Story Dr Sello Sele | Photo Supplied
Dr Sello Sele GBV Article
Dr Sello Sele, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of the Free State

In recent weeks, South Africa has once again been rocked by cases of gender-based violence (GBV) that have revealed an absurd contradiction in the public’s reaction towards each of these cases. The most harrowing incident involves the alleged assault of a now eight-year-old girl, referred to as Cwecwe, at Bergview College in Matatiele in the Eastern Cape. In stark contrast is the acquittal of Nigerian televangelist Timothy Omotoso, who faced multiple rape and kidnapping charges, which sparked a wave of celebration and jubilation among his followers, many of them women. This juxtaposition brings to light the serious absurdity among South Africans regarding GBV, specifically sexual violence, in this case. As such, this reveals what can only be described as glaring double standards.

Horror and urgency vs celebration

The case of Cwecwe, who was allegedly sexually assaulted at her school, ignited a massive outcry nationwide. The public’s reaction was one of horror and urgency as the details of the assault came to light. The #JusticeForCwecwe campaign gained traction, with social media platforms ablaze with calls for justice and accountability. The Eastern Cape Department of Education acted swiftly by deregistering the school involved, citing its failure to protect the young girl and being uncooperative towards the investigative process. The message from the public was clear: those who perpetrate violence against children must face the full might of the law.

Contrast this with the acquittal of Omotoso, a case which has caused an equally profound public reaction, but one that is far more troubling. Omotoso, who had been accused of grooming and raping young women over years, was acquitted by the Eastern Cape High Court following a long and highly publicised trial. The judge ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A large number of Omotoso’s followers, many of them women, erupted in celebration. Some even described his acquittal as a ‘victory’ for the faithful.

The stark contrast in the reactions to the two cases cannot be ignored. On the one hand, the public called for justice for a young girl whose life was forever changed by a violent assault, demanding that those responsible be held accountable. On the other hand, a group of men and women celebrated the acquittal of a man who had been accused of using his position of power to exploit and abuse vulnerable young women. What is happening here? Is this an example of the hypnotic effect religious leaders have over their followers?

 

The opium of the people

One might ask, how can women, many of whom would undoubtedly identify with victims of sexual violence, proudly rally behind a man accused of perpetrating such crimes? The answer lies, in part, in the complex relationship between power, belief, and religion (particularly in the context of South Africa's so-called miracle churches). In the case of Omotoso, his followers see him not as a perpetrator but as a martyr, a man whose innocence was denied by the justice system they believe is unjust. They chose to ignore the testimonies of the young women who accused him of abuse, instead placing their faith in their pastor’s word.

Karl Marx’s assertion that “religion is the opiate of the masses” remains highly relevant in this context. These words reflect the view that religion can function as a mechanism to pacify and distract the oppressed, offering them solace and hope while suppressing their capacity for critical thought and action. In the case of Omotoso’s acquittal, this quote seems to ring true for many of his followers, who, rather than questioning the credibility of the accusations against him, placed unwavering faith in their pastor's innocence. To them, his acquittal became not just a legal victory, but a spiritual one, reinforcing their belief in the miraculous power of their religious leader.

The quote further highlights the broader function of religion in the lives of those who feel marginalised or oppressed. South Africa’s miracle churches, which often promise ‘deliverance’ from poverty, illness, and personal hardship, provide a sense of hope and empowerment to many. Yet, this hope can also come at a high price, particularly when the faith placed in religious leaders becomes a tool for enabling abuse. The case of Omotoso is just one of many examples in which religious power has been misused, and the celebration of his acquittal illustrates how easily a religious narrative can overshadow the moral clarity needed in the face of sexual violence.

 

Deeper societal issue

South Africa’s miracle churches have long been a source of controversy, particularly when allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation emerge within these religious communities. Bishop Stephen Zondo, another prominent figure in the religious realm, offers a stark parallel. Zondo, the leader of the Rivers of Living Waters Ministries, was accused of sexually abusing women who encountered him for spiritual reasons. Despite the accusations, his followers continued to defend him, viewing him not as a perpetrator but as a victim of false allegations. Like Omotoso’s followers, Zondo’s supporters turned a blind eye to the claims of sexual abuse, prioritising their faith in their pastor over the safety and dignity of the victims.

The responses to the Cwecwe case and the Omotoso acquittal are not just examples of legal inconsistencies but are a deeper societal issue. In South Africa, where GBV is rampant, the public's reaction to these cases exposes double standards to what is morally right and what is socially, religiously or ideologically convenient. The case of Cwecwe calls for swift action, demanding justice for a defenceless child. The case of Omotoso, however, underscores how deeply entrenched power and religious influence can obscure appropriate reactions to social injustice, regardless of the many victims involved in their lamenting voices.

News Archive

To tan or not to tan: a burning issue
2009-12-08

 Prof. Werner Sinclair

“Some evidence exists which implies that sunscreens could indeed be responsible for the dramatic rise in the incidence of melanoma over the past three decades, the period during which the use of sunscreens became very popular,” says Prof. Werner Sinclair, Head of the Department of Dermatology at the University of the Free State. His inaugural lecture was on the topic Sunscreens – Curse or Blessing?

Prof. Sinclair says the use of sunscreen preparations is widely advocated as a measure to prevent acute sunburn, chronic sun damage and resultant premature skin aging as well as skin malignancies, including malignant melanoma. There is inconclusive evidence to prove that these preparations do indeed achieve all of these claims. The question is whether these preparations are doing more harm than good?

He says the incidence of skin cancer is rising dramatically and these tumours are induced mostly by the ultra-violet rays.

Of the UV light that reaches the earth 90-95% belongs to the UVA fraction. UVC is normally filtered out by the ozone layer. UVB leads to sunburn while UVA leads to pigmentation (tanning). Because frequent sunburn was often associated with skin cancer, UVB was assumed, naively, to be the culprit, he says.

Exposure to sunlight induces a sense of well-being, increases the libido, reduces appetite and induces the synthesis of large amounts of vitamin D, an essential nutritional factor. The use of sunscreen creams reduces vitamin D levels and low levels of vitamin D have been associated with breast and colon cancer. Prof. Sinclair says the 17% increase in breast cancer from 1981 to 1991 parallels the vigorous use of sunscreens over the same period.

Among the risk factors for the development of tumours are a family history, tendency to freckle, more than three episodes of severe sunburn during childhood, and the use of artificial UV light tanning booths. He says it remains a question whether to tan or not. It was earlier believed that the main carcinogenic rays were UVB and that UVA merely induced a tan. The increase in UVA exposure could have severe consequences.

Prof. Sinclair says the UV light used in artificial tanning booths consists mainly of pure UVA which are highly dangerous rays. It has been estimated that six per cent of all melanoma deaths in the UK can be directly attributed to the use of artificial tanning lights. The use of an artificial tanning booth will double the melanoma risk of a person. “UVA is solely responsible for solar skin aging and it is ironical that tanning addicts, who want to look beautiful, are inflicting accelerated ageing in the process,” he says.

On the use of sunscreens he says it can prevent painful sunburn, but UVA-induced damage continues unnoticed. UVB blockers decrease vitamin D synthesis, which is a particular problem in the elderly. It also prevents the sunburn warning and therefore increases the UVA dosage that an individual receives. It creates a false sense of security which is the biggest problem associated with sunscreens.

Evidence obtained from the state of Queensland in Australia, where the heaviest and longest use of sunscreens occurred, boasted the highest incidence of melanoma in the world. A huge study in Norway has shown a 350% increase in melanoma for men and 440% for women. This paralleled the increase in the use of UVB blocking sunscreens while there was no change in the ozone layer. It did however, occur during that time when tanning became fashionable in Norway and there was an increase especially in artificial tanning.

Prof. Sinclair says: “We believe that sunscreen use does not directly lead to melanoma, but UVA exposure does. The Melanoma Epidemic is a reality. Sunscreen preparations are not the magical answer in the fight against melanoma and the irresponsible use of these preparations can worsen the problem.”

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt.stg@ufs.ac.za
7 December 2009

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept