Pietermaritzburg – The Minister of Police has been ordered to pay R800,000 in damages to a KwaZulu-Natal man who was wrongfully arrested and detained on a rape charge, despite being physically incapable of committing the crime. The Pietermaritzburg High Court found that police acted negligently in ignoring crucial information that would have exonerated the man, who had his genitals severed years prior.
The 26-year-old, who remains unnamed to protect his privacy, sought legal recourse after enduring a harrowing ordeal that saw him spend 54 days behind bars. He turned to the KwaZulu Natal High Court, sitting in Pietermaritzburg, where he claimed damages for his unlawful arrest and detention.
The court heard that the man was arrested by Ezakheni police at his home in Ladysmith on March 26, 2020, on a charge of rape. He appeared in court four days later and was denied bail. Initially held in the local police station's holding cells, he was subsequently transferred to Ladysmith Correctional Centre, where he remained until his release on May 18, 2020, when the charges were finally withdrawn.
What makes this case particularly egregious is the fact that the investigating officer was informed by the man's father, during his first court appearance, that his son had been kidnapped in Soweto in 2013 and subjected to emasculation.
Despite this crucial piece of information, the investigating officer failed to investigate the father's claims or even inform the prosecution. This inaction was heavily criticised by the court.
The judge was clearly perplexed as to why the police investigator chose to ignore the information shared by the father that it was not possible for his son to commit rape because he was previously kidnapped and emasculated.
Instead, the man had to endure nearly two months of jail time charged due to the sex offence charge and the “malicious prosecution” he was subjected to.
The claimant told the court that on March 26, 2020 he was unlawfully arrested by the Ezakheni police at his home in Ladysmith, KZN on a charge of rape. He appeared in court four days later and was denied bail. After he was at first kept at the local police station’s holding cells, he was transferred to Ladysmith Correctional Centre until he was released on May 18, 2020, when the charge was withdrawn against him.
The police, in their defence, offered a "bare denial" of the facts, merely acknowledging the arrest. Tellingly, the South African Police Service (SAPS) failed to present their case at trial, further highlighting their negligence in the matter.
The claimant testified to the appalling conditions he endured while detained. He was kept in a tiny cell at the police station with a toilet that did not flush due to a lack of water. Overcrowding forced him to sleep on a blanket on the floor.
Adding to the absurdity of the situation, the court noted that while the accused denied the rape charge, he did not initially inform the police that he was physically incapable of committing the act.
It was only after nearly two months in jail that a doctor examined him and confirmed that he had no genitals. Upon confirmation of his physical impossibility to commit the offence, and after the prosecution was informed, the charge was promptly withdrawn.
While the court dismissed the claim for malicious prosecution against the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on the grounds that the charge was withdrawn before the prosecution proceeded, it firmly condemned the investigating officer's conduct.
The court criticised the investigating officer's careless neglect to confirm the information that the man was incapable of committing the offence and to inform the prosecution about it. This led to his unlawful detention, the court said.
In assessing the damages, the court acknowledged that limited evidence was presented regarding the specific conditions of the holding cell. However, it recognised the well-documented issue of overcrowding and inhumane conditions within South African prisons.
The court accepted that he did not commit the rape and noted that he never even received an apology from the police, nor an explanation as to why he was arrested. Instead, the police did not even bother to pitch at court to explain themselves, the court said.
The judge emphasised the investigating officer's "careless neglect" in failing to verify the information provided by the father, which ultimately led to the man's unlawful detention. The court acknowledged the absence of an apology or explanation from the police, further compounding the injustice suffered by the claimant. The court accepted that he did not commit the rape and noted that he never even received an apology from the police, nor an explanation as to why he was arrested. Instead, the police did not even bother to pitch at court to explain themselves, the court said.
