Opinion article by Zinhle Vanda, an honours student in Sociology at the University of the Free State

Racial issues should not and cannot be ignored; however, the tendency to racialise every issue has been a problem, even when justice should be served. This can be emotionally exhausting, especially for a nation trying to heal from past racial oppression. Every time a high-profile crime or court case emerges, people hold their collective breath – not just for justice, but for what colour that justice will wear. But should we?

The case of Cwecwe, a young seven-year-old girl from Matatiele in the Eastern Cape, shocked the nation. One of the alleged key suspects was a white man. While the initial public response was rightly centred on justice for the child, the focus quickly shifted for some advocates. Instead of remaining united and calling out against gender-based violence, the case took a sharp turn towards a racial battle. This was slowly reflecting how South Africans pull out the ‘racial card’ in uncomfortable battles. This case had various accusations; some argued that the white suspect was being protected by the system and others defended his innocence. These allegations sparked social media comments such as, “If the victim was a white girl and the accused was a black man, the case would have taken a different direction.” What could have been a moment of national child protection advocacy has become yet another episode in South Africa’s long racial war. It is important to note that no charges or prosecution were brought against the man/men responsible after the investigation; the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) found no conclusive evidence to proceed with the case. The focus of this piece is on public judgment rather than proving guilt or innocence, and how public opinion – especially social media – sometimes overpowers the narrative, the true aim of justice, and the protection of victims like Cwecwe.

In these cases, justice is either seen as revenge or bias

In cases where the victim and suspect are of different races, justice is often not seen as justice, it is either seen as revenge or bias. Questions like was justice done? are no longer asked; instead, the question asked is, for whom was it done? The painful result is the actual issue of a child survivor of sexual violence fading into the background. The danger lies in letting race dominate every justice conversation, as it defeats the whole purpose of justice. This leads to the pain of those who are vulnerable, often women and children, being overlooked. This is what Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality says – that multiple forms of oppression such as race and sexism can overlap, making people more vulnerable. Intersectionality is specific forms of intersecting oppressions, which could include intersections of race and gender, or of sexuality and nation. Intersectional paradigms say that oppression cannot be reduced to one fundamental type, and that oppressions work together to cause injustice. Intersectionality makes a bold argument that true justice means seeing all parts of a person’s identity, not just the most politically charged one. In cases where race become the core focus, issues such as gender-based violence or child protection are pushed aside, even when there is connection. Justice will never be served in a country like South Africa if the race of the accused takes precedence over the crime committed. We cannot shy away from the truth; black people have been oppressed in the past and may still be bleeding from this injustice. Intersectionality urges us to consider historical context in all aspects of our analyses, but this should not come at the expense of other crucial factors such as gender, children’s rights, criminality, justice, and others that are essential to understanding a case like Cwecwe’s abuse.

Being a criminal has nothing to do with skin colour

Will the battle of race end? Most of South Africa’s issues are the result of racial discourse, but not everything can be resolved through the racial lens. The amount of focus directed at race tends to defeat the means of justice and hinder national healing. This only weakens the nation’s unity and has the potential to affect coming generations. Justice should be characterised by fairness, equality, the truth, and accountability. It should not only wear a racial mask or be seen as revenge for past and present wounds or enable racial oppression. This highlights the need to critically examine how our understanding of justice is shaped by societal narratives, historical contexts, and collective experiences. The social constructivist theory of reality, developed by Peter L Berger and Thomas Luckmann in 1966, argues that social concepts such as justice are constructed through collective human interpretation and interaction, rather than existing as objective or universal truths. It looks at how people’s social understanding is shaped by social narratives and collective beliefs. This explain why certain crimes are viewed through the lens of race rather than justice, because of the social meaning attached to race and violence. According to this theory, people do not often react to facts, but they react to the social meaning that those facts carry. Apartheid is part of South Africa’s history, and it comes as no surprise that racial segregation remains a dominant narrative for its citizens. Furthermore, the social construction theory illustrates how this racial emphasis is not a natural reason, but rather a socially produced one. Thus, the racial image portrayed in the justice system often associates black people with violence and subordination, and white people are associated with innocence and protection. This leads to black victims not getting justice, and crimes against them remain forgotten. And black accused receive heftier prison sentences. Being a criminal has nothing to do with the colour of one’s skin; the focus should be more on the crime committed. Justice should be fairly applied; no one is above the law, and no race or colour should be treated as superior or inferior under it.