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

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

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