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

The TRC legitimised apartheid - Mamdani
2010-07-20

 Prof. Mahmood Mamdani
“The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) accepted as legitimate the rule of law that undergirded apartheid. It defined as crime only those acts that would have been considered criminal under the laws of apartheid.”

This statement was made by the internationally acclaimed scholar, Prof. Mahmood Mamdani, when he delivered the Africa Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State (UFS) last week on the topic: Lessons of Nuremberg and Codesa: Where do we go from here?

“According to the TRC, though crimes were committed under apartheid, apartheid itself – including the law enforced by the apartheid state – was not a crime,” he said.

He said the social justice challenges that South Africa faced today were as a result of the TRC’s failure to broaden the discussion of justice beyond political to social justice.

He said it had to go beyond “the liberal focus on bodily integrity” and acknowledge the violence that deprived the vast majority of South Africans of their means of livelihood.

“Had the TRC acknowledged pass laws and forced removals as constituting the core social violence of apartheid, as the stuff of extra-economic coercion and primitive accumulation, it would have been in a position to imagine a socio-economic order beyond a liberalised post-apartheid society,” he said.

“It would have been able to highlight the question of justice in its fullness, and not only as criminal and political, but also as social.”

He said the TRC failed to go beyond the political reconciliation achieved at Codesa and laid the foundation for a social reconciliation. “It was unable to think beyond crime and punishment,” he said.

He said it recognised as victims only individuals and not groups, and human rights violations only as violations of “the bodily integrity of an individual”; that is, only torture and murder.

“How could this be when apartheid was brazenly an ideology of group oppression and appropriation? How could the TRC make a clear-cut distinction between violence against persons and that against property when most group violence under apartheid constituted extra-economic coercion, in other words, it was against both person and property?”, he asked.

“The TRC was credible as performance, as theatre, but failed as a social project”.

Prof. Mamdani is the Director of the Institute of Social Research at the Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda; and the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government in the Department of Anthropology at the Columbia University in New York, USA.

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt@ufs.ac.za  
20 July 2010
 

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