{"id":16743,"date":"2025-09-25T00:28:19","date_gmt":"2025-09-25T07:28:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/?p=16743"},"modified":"2025-09-28T00:35:54","modified_gmt":"2025-09-28T07:35:54","slug":"concourt-asked-to-redefine-consent-in-sexual-offences-cases-daily-maverick","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/?p=16743","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;ConCourt asked to redefine \u2018consent\u2019 in sexual offences\u00a0cases&#8221;, Daily Maverick"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/article\/2025-09-25-concourt-asked-to-redefine-consent-in-sexual-offences-cases\/?dm_source=dm_block_grid&amp;dm_medium=card_link&amp;dm_campaign=main#long-form\">&nbsp;DIVE DEEPER&nbsp;<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/article\/2025-09-25-concourt-asked-to-redefine-consent-in-sexual-offences-cases\/?dm_source=dm_block_grid&amp;dm_medium=card_link&amp;dm_campaign=main#speed-read\">&nbsp;SPEED READ<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/article\/2025-09-25-concourt-asked-to-redefine-consent-in-sexual-offences-cases\/?dm_source=dm_block_grid&amp;dm_medium=card_link&amp;dm_campaign=main#summary\">&nbsp;SUMMARY<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/article\/2025-09-25-concourt-asked-to-redefine-consent-in-sexual-offences-cases\/?dm_source=dm_block_grid&amp;dm_medium=card_link&amp;dm_campaign=main#long-form\">&nbsp;LISTEN<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>By&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/author\/tamsin-metelerkamp\/\">Tamsin Metelerkamp&nbsp;<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/sign-in\">&nbsp;Follow<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u00a025 Sep 2025, Johannesburg<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The nonprofit organisation Embrace Project has taken its fight to change South Africa\u2019s sexual offences laws to the Constitutional Court, claiming that the legislation contains a legal bias in favour of perpetrators.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/NotLeave-Sally_3.jpg?resize=1440%2C720&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1\" alt=\"ConCourt asked to redefine \u2018consent\u2019 in sexual offences cases\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><em>\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0 Protesters march against gender-based violence, organised by several NGOs and organisations at the JSE in Sandton on September 13, 2019 in Sandton. (Photo: Gallo Images\/Alet Pretorius)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Trigger warning: This article refers to instances of rape and\/or sexual violence.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On Thursday, 25 September, the Constitutional Court heard a case brought by the nonprofit organisation Embrace Project challenging the constitutionality of various provisions within the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Act, including those related to rape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Central to the arguments put forward by the Embrace Project, an organisation that combats gender-based violence (GBV) in South Africa, is that the law allows an accused person to avoid conviction where they wrongly believe that the victim consented to the sexual act, even if that belief is unreasonable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This permits an accused to raise their belief in consent as a defence, by alleging they thought the victim was saying \u201cyes\u201d, or was showing they were willing participants in the sexual act through their actions or lack of resistance. It does not require showing that consent was actually given.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Embrace Project launched the constitutional challenge in November 2022, together with Inge Holztr\u00e4ger, the second applicant and a survivor of rape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?resize=720%2C523&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1\" alt=\"ConCourt\" width=\"720\" height=\"523\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?w=2514&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 2514w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?resize=480%2C349&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 480w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?resize=720%2C523&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 720w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?resize=768%2C558&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?resize=1536%2C1116&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1536w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?resize=2048%2C1488&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 2048w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?resize=1280%2C930&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1280w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?resize=1600%2C1163&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?resize=50%2C36&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 50w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?resize=600%2C436&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?w=1440&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1440w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/andelleschenach218.jpg?w=2160&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 2160w\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-2903433\"><em>Inge Holztr\u00e4ger is the second applicant in the case before the Constitutional Court. (Photo: Inge Holztr\u00e4ger)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Representing the Embrace Project and Holztr\u00e4ger in the Constitutional Court, advocate Nasreen Rajab-Budlender said the burden of proof the State had to meet in sexual offence cases under the current laws was \u201calmost impossible\u201d, particularly in situations where victims experienced a peritraumatic response during assaults, such as freezing up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cIn the papers put up by the Psychological Society of South Africa \u2026 in the high court, they recorded \u2026 in South Africa between 2022 and 2023, 42,780 cases of rape were reported. Of these, there were only 591 convictions. This translates to a 1.38% successful prosecution rate,\u201d said Rajab-Budlender.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cSomething is clearly wrong, and we submit that there are many factors for what\u2019s wrong, but in large part it has to do with the difficulty of proving these crimes, the burden that is on the state, and that is the subjective standard \u2026 of consent that is inherent in \u2026 the sections of the Act.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Unconstitutional and invalid<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Constitutional Court proceedings follow a ruling of the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria in September 2024, which found sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11A read with section 1(2) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Act to be unconstitutional and invalid, as they were inconsistent with the rights of victims and survivors of sexual violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Read more in Daily Maverick:<\/strong>&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/article\/2024-10-02-not-a-dry-eye-in-the-room-as-court-rules-parts-of-sexual-offences-act-unconstitutional\/\">\u2019Not a dry eye in the room\u2019 as court rules parts of Sexual Offences Act unconstitutional<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondents in the case are the minister of justice and correctional services, the minister in the Presidency for women, youth and persons with disabilities, and the President of South Africa.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Embrace Project and Holztr\u00e4ger are seeking a ruling from the Constitutional Court confirming the high court order, which included a suspension of the declaration of invalidity for 18 months to allow Parliament to amend the relevant sections of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?resize=720%2C480&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" width=\"720\" height=\"480\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?w=2560&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 2560w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?resize=480%2C320&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 480w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?resize=720%2C480&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 720w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?resize=768%2C512&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?resize=1536%2C1024&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1536w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?resize=2048%2C1365&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 2048w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?resize=1280%2C853&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1280w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?resize=1600%2C1067&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?resize=50%2C33&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 50w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?resize=600%2C400&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?w=1440&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1440w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9149779-scaled.jpg?w=2160&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 2160w\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-2903444\">Tens of thousands protested outside parliament against gender based violence following a week of brutal murders of young South African women in Cape Town, South Africa, 05 September 2019. (Photo: EPA\/NIC BOTHMA)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>During this period, the applicants request an interim solution where it\u2019s read into law that it is not a valid defence for an accused person to rely on a subjective belief that the complainant was consenting to a sexual act, \u201cunless the accused took objectively reasonable steps to ascertain that the complainant had consented to the sexual act in question with the accused\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While the State respondents opposed the Embrace Project\u2019s case in the high court, they elected not to oppose the relief sought in the Constitutional Court, with the legal team indicating they would abide by the court\u2019s decision. However, they requested 36 months to rectify the legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Holztr\u00e4ger told Daily Maverick: \u201cI think it\u2019s such an important thing for people to realise that the law is failing in terms of sexual offences, and that, for me, is the biggest motivator. I\u2019m not doing this for me. My case is done. It will never change. But [the constitutional challenge] will make a huge difference in so many women\u2019s lives.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Problem of intent&nbsp;<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Sexual Offences Act defines rape as a situation in which a person \u201cunlawfully and intentionally commits an act of sexual penetration with a complainant (\u2019B\u2019), without the consent of B\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The problem with this definition, according to the Embrace Project, is that it means it is not enough to prove in court that a person accused of rape committed an act of sexual penetration without the victim\u2019s consent. It is also necessary to prove that the accused, in their own subjective state of mind, intended to rape the complainant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?resize=720%2C441&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" width=\"720\" height=\"441\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?w=2560&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 2560w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?resize=480%2C294&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 480w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?resize=720%2C441&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 720w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?resize=768%2C471&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?resize=1536%2C942&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1536w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?resize=2048%2C1255&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 2048w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?resize=1280%2C785&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1280w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?resize=1600%2C981&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?resize=50%2C31&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 50w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?resize=600%2C368&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?w=1440&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1440w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9147837-scaled.jpg?w=2160&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 2160w\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-2903442\">Protestors in Cape Town on 5 September 2019 demanded the South African government clamp down on gender based violence. President Cyril Ramaphosa spoke to the crowd and promised more stringent measure against those convicted of rape and sexual violence. (Photo: EPA\/NIC BOTHMA)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In Holztr\u00e4ger\u2019s rape case, the regional court in Pretoria found that the accused acted unlawfully and without Holztr\u00e4ger\u2019s consent. However, he was exonerated as the court was not satisfied that he \u201csubjectively knew that he did not have consent to proceed with the acts\u201d, according to the judgment in the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the judgment, which was included with the founding affidavit for the Embrace Project and Holztr\u00e4ger\u2019s constitutional challenge in the high court, the following information was put forward:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Holztr\u00e4ger and the accused met for the first time on the night of the incident, having communicated electronically before that;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The accused invited her to his house for a party, but when she arrived, there was no one but him there, and no one else arrived while she was there;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>She said \u201cno\u201d during the assault, but could not confirm whether he had heard her; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>She felt \u201cshell-shocked\u201d and as if she was \u201cin a trance\u201d during the assault.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The doctor who examined her after the incident testified that \u201cone would not expect to see so many injuries present where sexual intercourse was by consent, as the sexual intercourse would normally be stopped \u2026 as it would be too painful to proceed\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The accused claimed that Holztr\u00e4ger consented to the sexual act, and he accepted that she consented because \u201cthere was mutual interaction and reaction by both parties\u201d and \u201c[she] never indicated verbally or physically for him to stop\u201d, according to the judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MC-Embrace-Project.jpg?resize=720%2C434&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" width=\"720\" height=\"434\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-1507791\">The Embrace Project, a nonprofit combatting gender-based violence and femicide in South Africa, launched a constitutional challenge against the problematic definitions of consent and rape in the Sexual Offences Act. (Photo: EPA-EFE\/ Nic Bothma)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The final part of the judgment stated: \u201cThe court is convinced that if consent had to be evaluated objectively in this case, the reasonable man in the same position as the accused would not have assumed or accepted in [these] circumstances that he had consent and would have done more to ensure that consent was indeed present. Due to the fact that the test for unlawfulness is indeed an objective one, the court is satisfied that the evidence proves the element of unlawfulness beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cRape can, however, only be committed intentionally. In our law and the reported case law that I am bound to follow, the belief that a woman consented to sexual intercourse need not be a reasonable one as the test to establish intent is a purely subjective one.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Fighting for justice&nbsp;<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>A challenge Holztr\u00e4ger has faced in pursuing the constitutional challenge is the slow-moving nature of the courts, with multiple delays due to parties requesting extensions or failing to submit papers on time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cI don\u2019t know whether they necessarily understand the gravitas of the case and how many people it\u2019s affecting daily when the law is the problem,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, she noted that her family, legal team and therapist had provided \u201cgreat support\u201d to her over the course of the case. Other survivors of sexual assault have also reached out to her with their stories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cI\u2019ve had quite a few people who\u2019ve opened up to me, saying it also happened to them\u2026 Because I\u2019ve gone through it myself, it\u2019s a little bit easier [to understand their experiences]. And I remember what it felt like, not wanting to tell anyone \u2014 you immediately feel so ashamed, although you didn\u2019t necessarily do anything wrong,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Holztr\u00e4ger encouraged survivors of sexual offences to always report the assaults and \u201ctake the power back\u201d. She said she felt \u201cpositive\u201d about the Constitutional Court proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cI think [it\u2019s important] to remember that there\u2019s actual people behind the laws, and I think that\u2019s something that so easily gets missed. Out of everyone that is going to be presenting at the ConCourt, the Embrace Project and I are the only party that actually has a person, a case behind them. Everyone else is making academic arguments. They don\u2019t know how it will actually affect the people it\u2019s supposed to protect,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>In the ConCourt&nbsp;<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Rajab-Budlender argued that the impugned provisions of the Act infringed on the rights to equality, dignity, privacy, bodily and psychological integrity and freedom and security of victims in sexual offence cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cMany survivors of sexual violence do not fight or flee, but they freeze. That is a recognised reaction. While the court can no longer infer consent from their silence or pacificity, the accused can because of the way in which these provisions are drafted, and the Act compels the court to treat this as a valid defence,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cMost perversely, the less progressive a man\u2019s views are about consent, the more likely he is to be acquitted under the statute as it stands.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?resize=720%2C480&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1\" alt=\"Copyright Bill\" width=\"720\" height=\"480\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?w=1654&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1654w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?resize=480%2C320&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 480w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?resize=720%2C480&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 720w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?resize=768%2C512&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?resize=1536%2C1023&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1536w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?resize=1280%2C853&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1280w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?resize=1600%2C1066&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?resize=600%2C400&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?resize=50%2C33&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 50w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/GroundUp-copyright-ConCourt.jpg?w=1440&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 1440w\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-2423262\">The nonprofit organisation Embrace Project has taken its fight to change South Africa\u2019s sexual offences laws to the Constitutional Court, claiming that the legislation contains a legal bias in favour of perpetrators. (Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Justice Owen Rogers questioned whether the changes to the Act would limit the rights of the accused person by criminalising negligence rather than knowingly unlawful conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Rajab-Budlender responded, \u201cThe way the statute currently stands does not balance the rights of the complainant and the accused at all, because the analysis is purely on the subjective intention of the perpetrator. We submit that, in our formulation, there\u2019s a greater balancing of rights, because an accused would be able to raise a defence that she consented and \u2026 show that he took steps to verify that consent, and the burden would then be on the State \u2026 to disprove that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Justice Narandran Kollapan reflected on whether the case was attempting to fix a \u201cdeep-seated, ingrained problem in our society\u201d through \u201ctampering with legislation\u201d, and questioned whether the changes to law would have the desired results if the filtering of evidence in courts still fell short of the standards set.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cIt is often the case that when this court is called upon to weigh in on the constitutionality of a statute, the court is trying its best to do its job as the arbiters of law. Law is not everything, and it\u2019s not always a solution, and that is why \u2026 we raise the context in which all of this happens, because social norms, myths, patriarchy operate in equal measure to law,\u201d responded Rajab-Budlender.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWe say it is not okay for this court to do nothing in the context where there is clearly a problem.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Various organisations that were not the litigating parties made submissions to the court offering information and expertise, including the Centre for Human Rights and the Women\u2019s Legal Centre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Centre for Human Rights provided psychological insights into the responses of victims during a sexual assault.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/MC-RapeHIVrisk-Bhekisisa.jpg?resize=720%2C360&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1\" alt=\"eastern cape rape stabbing mutilation\" width=\"720\" height=\"360\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/MC-RapeHIVrisk-Bhekisisa.jpg?w=768&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/MC-RapeHIVrisk-Bhekisisa.jpg?w=480&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 480w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailymaverick.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/MC-RapeHIVrisk-Bhekisisa.jpg?w=350&amp;quality=89&amp;ssl=1 350w\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-780403\">A protest against rape in Johannesburg. (Photo: Aisha Abdool Karim)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Women\u2019s Legal Centre argued against declaring provisions within the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Act unconstitutional, saying that changing the legislation was unnecessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWe submit that it is disingenuous to recognise the historical power and control [of the patriarchy], and then essentially to infantilise men by accepting the contention that they labour under a genuine but unreasonable belief in consent,\u201d said the legal team for the Women\u2019s Legal Centre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWhat this court can do is recognise that when evaluating claims of a belief in consent, trial courts must evaluate whether reasonable grounds exist to support that claim.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Constitutional Court reserved judgment.&nbsp;<strong>DM<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By&nbsp;Tamsin Metelerkamp&nbsp;&nbsp;Follow \u00a025 Sep 2025, Johannesburg The nonprofit organisation Embrace Project has taken its fight to change South Africa\u2019s sexual offences laws to the Constitutional Court, claiming that the legislation contains a legal bias in favour of perpetrators.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Protesters march against gender-based violence, organised by several NGOs and organisations at the JSE in Sandton [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1001004,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[53],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16743"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1001004"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16743"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16743\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16748,"href":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16743\/revisions\/16748"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16743"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16743"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16743"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}