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

Protection of Information bill- opinions from our experts
2011-11-28

Prof. Hussein Solomon
Senior Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of the Free State. 

In recent years, given their failure to effectively govern, the ANC has become increasingly defensive. These defensive traits have become particularly acute in light of the various corruption scandals that members of the ruling party involve themselves in.
 
Given the fact that for now they are assured of an electoral majority (largely on account of their anti-apartheid credentials), coupled with the fact that they have managed to make parliament a rubber stamp of the executive as opposed to holding the executive accountable, it is the media which has increasingly held the ruling party to account by exposing such corruption and incompetence in government.
 
The passing of the information bill, therefore, is not merely an attack on the media, but an attack on the pivotal issue of accountability. Without accountability, there can be no democracy.
 
By defining national interest broadly, by refusing to accept a public interest clause in the bill, the ANC increasingly shows its disdain to South Africa's constitution and its citizens.
 
More importantly, as former Minister of Intelligence and ANC stalwart Ronnie Kasrils pointedly makes clear, the ANC is also betraying its own noble struggle against the odious apartheid regime. It was the media which played a key role in exposing apartheid's excesses, it is the same media which is coming under attack by the heirs of PW Botha's State Security Council - Minister of State Security Siyabong Cwele and his security apparatchiks whose mindsets reflect more Stalin's Gulag's than the values of the Freedom Charter.
 
The passing of this bill is also taking place at a time when journalists have had their phones attacked, where the judiciary has been deliberately undermined and parliament silenced.
 
Democrats beware!

 
Prof. Johann de Wet
Chairperson: Department of Communication Science 
 
The ANC’s insistence on passing the Protection of State Information Bill in its current form and enforcing it by law, means that the essence of our democratic state and the quality of life of every citizen is at stake.
 
Yes, our freedom as academics, researchers, mass media practitioners and citizens comes into play. Freedom implies the right to choose and is, along with equality, an underlying principle which helps make democracy happen. While the South African state needs to protect (classify) information which could threaten its security and/or survival, the omission of a public interest clause in the Bill at this stage effectively denies a citizen the right to freedom of information.
 
 Freedom of information, along with press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and religious freedom, are essential to democracy. These freedoms are granted because they conform to basic liberal ideas associated with (Western) democracy and which resonate with South Africa’s liberal constitution, such as (1) belief in the supreme value of the individual (and thus not of the state); (2) belief that the individual has natural rights (rights which belong to all human beings by nature – such as the right to life and to control government)) which exist independently of government, and which ought to be protected by and against government; and (3) recognition of the supreme value of the individual. 
 
One wonders how many cases of South African government corruption and mismanagement would have been uncovered by investigative journalists over the past number of years if this Bill in its current form was on the statute books. This Bill represents a backward step from the promise of democracy of having an informed public. The former National Party government had similar laws in place and one does not want to go there again. The infamous Information Scandal in South Africa of some thirty years ago, or Muldergate as it has come to be known, reminds one of what governments can do when it works clandestinely.
 
What South Africans need, is more information on what government structures are doing and how they are doing it with taxpayers’ money, not less information. While information in itself does not equal communication or dialogue, it is an indispensable part thereof, and the need for dialogue based on verifiable information is urgent for meeting vexed challenges facing South African communities. Academics in all fields of specialisation are constantly in need of untainted information to pursue answers and/or offer solutions to where South Africa should be moving in all spheres of life.

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