While Rivers of Living Waters Church leader Bishop Bafana Stephen Zondo will be back on Monday in the Sebokeng Magistrates Court to face eight counts of sexual assault, his sex trial in Pretoria will only resume on March 3.
His Gauteng High Court Pretoria trial is scheduled to run until March 20, when it will be Zondo’s turn to present his defence.
He earlier pleaded not guilty to 10 sex-related charges, and although he did not divulge his defence, it became clear during the prosecution’s case that he claims his alleged victims are lying - either in a bid to extort money from him or to start their own rival Church.
The last witness the prosecution called was well-known forensic psychologist Professor Gerard Labuschagne, who provided psychological insights into the delayed reporting of the complainants in this case regarding their allegations of rape. He also testified about the impact of rape myths and sexual abuse by religious figures.
The defence objected to the introduction of this evidence based on irrelevancy and inadmissibility. Further, that the admissibility of such evidence will prejudice the accused.
The seven alleged victims have testified since the start of the trial towards the end of 2021. Most of them only came to the fore regarding their rape allegations years later.
But in a recent judgment regarding the matter, Judge Papi Mosopa allowed Labuschagne’s evidence to be part of the State’s case.
He said it is plain from the evidence that the majority of the complainants reported the rape allegations against them very late. The complainant mentioned in count 1 alleges that the rape incidents took place during the 1980s when she was still a young child.
“The complainants were cross-examined at length by defence advocate Piet Pistorius on their late reporting of rape allegations against them, and I consider that this prompted the state to source the expert testimony of Professor Labuschagne,” Judge Mosopa said.
He noted that the legislation deemed it fit to deal with this topic of delay in reporting sexual offences matters and enacted the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, which provides that in criminal proceedings involving the alleged commission of a sexual offence, the court may not draw any inference only from the length of any delay between the alleged commission of such offence and the reporting thereof.
Judge Mosopa said this shows that it is not fatal to the State’s case for the complainants in the alleged sexual offence matter to delay reporting their complaints. A period of time that lapsed between the commission of an alleged offence and reporting such an offence is no longer a consideration.
Pistorius also objected to Labuschagne’s reference to European countries, the United States, and Ghana on the basis of irrelevancy and that references to such countries be excluded from his report.
It is after this objection was raised that the state conceded that they will only rely on South African references. Pistorius also objected to what he called “generalized typical references,” as it amounts to generalized speculation, which is inadmissible.
Professor Labuschagne was criticized for being partisan and one-sided as he relied only on what the state’s case is and did not consider the accused's testimony as he has not yet testified. It must be noted that Labuschagne was extensively cross-examined by the defence, the judge said.
Judge Mosopa, however, made it clear that the opinion drawn by an expert witness does not replace the task of the court to determine issues in dispute.
Labuschagne, during his evidence, said many sexual assault victims delay reporting the incident to the police and even more never report this. Research concluded in Gauteng found that only one in 25 women who had been raped reported this to the police.
Pretoria News