SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Reportable
CASE NUMBER: CC46/2019
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
EDWARD AYUK Accused 1
LEANDRE WILLIAMS AYUK Accused 2
YANNICK AYUK Accused 3
__________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
__________________________________________________________________
DE WET, AJ
[1] Human trafficking is a dehumanising crime that reduces people to
commodities. It is commonly referred to as modern-day slavery.
2
[2] In accordance with the Trafficking NPF’s Policy on the sex work industry
“…trafficked persons should always be treated as victims of a crime and holders of
rights. They should not be criminalised, re -victimised or re -traumatised as a result
of their contact with law enforcement and judicial authorities. Too often, in fact,
victims are treated as criminals or illegal migrants and are detained, charged or
prosecuted for violations of immigration law or for activities committed as a direct
consequence of their being trafficked (e.g. Prostitution, possession or use of
fraudulent documents, ect.)”1
[3] The accused were indicted in the Western Cape High Court on the following
counts:
IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 1 AND 3:2
3.1 Six counts of contravention of s 4(1) read with ss 1, 2, 11 and 13(1)(a)
14, 19, 29 and 30 of the Prevention and Combating of T rafficking in
Persons Act 7 of 2013 (the “Human Trafficking Act” ) read with the
provisions of s 51(1) and schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act 105 of 1997 (“the CLAA”) and read with the provisions of ss 94, 256,
257, 261 and 268 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (“the CPA”)
further read with ss 1, 50(2)(a), 50(2)(b), 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the CLAA
and further read with the provisions of ss 1 and 120 of the Children’s Act
38 of 2005 (“the Children’s Act”) [Trafficking in persons]
1 The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development 2019 Prevention and combating of Trafficking in Persons
National Policy Framework “Trafficking NPF” at page 43 and 46.
2 At the outset I wish to make it clear that no disrespect is intended by referring to the accused as accused 1, 2 and 3
respectively or to the complainants and witnesses by using, as they called it, their “street names”. It is done simply to avoid
any confusion.
3
3.1.1 Count 1 is the recruitment, transportation, harbour ing and
receiving of another person, to wit [SM], an adult female person
within the borders of the Republic, by means of:
3.1.1.1 deception or other forms of coercion to wit by
supplying
the said [SM] with drugs; or work opportunity; and
3.1.1.2 the abuse of vulnerability, to wit the said [SM], was
unemployed and desperate for work and was
addicted to drugs and the accused saw to it that she
was supplied with drugs for the purpose of sexual
exploitation, to wit, by selling her to clients, whose
names are unknown to the State for financial reward.
3.1.2 Count 7 is the recruit ment, transport ation, harbour ing and
receiving of another person, to wit [MA], an adult female person
within the borders of the Republic, by means of:
3.1.2.1 deception or other forms of coercion to wit by offering
the said [MA] monetary reward and or work, and
3.1.2.2 the abuse of vulnerability, to wit the said [MA], was
unemployed and desperate for money when she was
recruited to work as a sex worker and was addicted to
drugs and the accused saw to it that she was
supplied with drugs for the purpose of sexual
exploitation, to wit, by selling her to clients, whose
names are unknown to the State for financial reward.
3.1.3 Count 8 is the recruit ment, transport ation, harbouring and
receiving of another person, to wit [CJ], an adult female person
within the borders of the Republic, by means of:
4
3.1.3.1 the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion
to wit by promising employment and supplying the
said [CJ] with drugs; and
3.1.3.2 the abuse of vulnerability, to wit, the said [CJ] was
unemployed and was addicted to drugs and the
accused saw to it that she was supplied with drugs
for the purpose of sexual exploitation, to wit by
selling her to clients, whose names are unknown to
the State for financial reward.
3.1.4 Count 15 is the recruit ment, transportation and harbour ing
and receive of another person, to wit h [ND], an adult female
within the borders of the Republic, by means of:
3.1.4.1 the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion
to wit by supplying the said [ND] with drugs; and
3.1.4.2 the abuse of vulnerability, to wit, the said [ND] was
very young when she was recruited to work as a sex
worker and was addicted to drugs and the accused
saw to it that she was supplied with drugs for the
purpose of sexual exploitation, to wit, by selling her
to clients, whose names are unknown to the State for
financial reward.
3.1.5 Count 28 is the recruit ment, transport ation and harbouring
and receiv ing of another person, to wit [SN], a 15 -year-old
female person, within the borders of the Republic, by means
of
3.1.5.1 the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion
to wit by supplying the said [SN] with drugs; and
5
3.1.5.2 the abuse of vulnerability, to wit, the said [SN] was
very young when she was recruited to work as a sex
worker and was addicted to drugs and the accused
saw to it that she was supplied with drugs for the
purpose of sexual exploitation, to wit, by selling her
to clients, whose names are unknown to the State for
financial reward.
3.1.6 Count 34 is the recruitment, transport ation, harbour ing
and receiv ing of another person, to wit [SD] an adult female
person within the borders of the Republic, by means of:
3.1.6.1 the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion
to wit by supplying the said [SD] with drugs; and
3.1.6.2 the abuse of vulnerability, to wit, the said [SD] was
very young when she was recruited to work as a sex
worker and was addicted to drugs and the accused
saw to it that she was supplied with drugs for the
purpose of sexual exploitation, to wit, by selling her
to clients, whose names are unknown to the State for
financial reward.
3.2 Five counts of contravention of s 5 read with ss 1, 2, 11, 12, 13(1)(c),
14, 29, 30 and 48 of the Human Trafficking Act read with the
provisions of ss 1, 50(2)(a), 50(2)(b), 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the CLAA
and read with the provisions ss 94, 256 and 270 of the CPA further
read with the provisions of ss 1 and 120 of the Children’s Act [Debt
Bondage].
6
3.2.1 Count 2 is to engage in conduct that caused another person, to
wit [SM] to enter into debt bondage by supplying her with drugs
in lieu of repayment for her transport and accommodation.
3.2.2 Count 9 is to engage in conduct that caused another person, to
wit [CJ] to enter into debt bondage supplying her with drugs in
lieu of repayment for her transport and accommodation.
3.2.3 Count 16 is to engage in conduct that caused another person,
to wit [ND] to enter into debt bondage supplying her with drugs
in lieu of repayment for her transport and accommodation.
3.2.4 Count 29 is to engage in conduct that caused another person,
to wit [SN] to enter into debt bondage supplying her with drugs
in lieu of repayment for her transport and accommodation.
3.2.5 Count 35 is to engage in conduct that caused another person,
to wit [SD] to enter into debt bondage supplying her with drugs
in lieu of repayment for her transport and accommodation.
3.3. Five counts of contravention of s 7 read with ss 1, 2, 11 and 13(1)(c)
14,19, 29 and 30 of the Human Trafficking Act read with the provisions of
section 51(2) and schedule 2 of the CLAA and read with the provisions of
ss 94, 256, 257, 261 and 268 of the CPA [Using the services of a victim
of trafficking]
3.3.1 Count 3 is to benefit financially or otherwise from the services
of a victim of trafficking , to wit [SM], by taking the money that
she made from selling herself to unknown men, and the
accused knew or ought reasonably to have known or
suspected that the said [SM] is a victim of trafficking
irrespective of whether the intended sexual exploitation or
action occurred or not.
7
3.3.2 Count 10 is to benefit financially or otherwise from the services
of a victim of trafficking , to wit [CJ], by taking the money that
she made from selling herself to unknown men, and the
accused knew or ought reasonably to have known or
suspected that the said [CJ] is a victim of trafficking irrespective
of whether the intended sexual exploitation or action occurred
or not.
3.3.3 Count 17 is to benefit financially or otherwise f rom the services
of a victim of trafficking , to wit [ND], by taking the money that
she made from selling herself to unknown men, and the
accused knew or ought reasonably to have known or
suspected that the said [ND] is a victim of trafficking
irrespective of whether the intended sexual exploitation or
action occurred or not.
3.3.4 Count 30 is to benefit financially or otherwise from the services
of a victim of trafficking , to wit [SN], by taking the money that
she made from selling herself to unknown men, and the
accused knew or ought reasonably to have known or
suspected that the said [SN] is a victim of trafficking
irrespective of whether the intended sexual exploitation or
action occurred or not.
3.3.5 Count 36 is to benefit financially or otherwise from the services
of a victim of trafficking , to wit [SD], by taking the money that
she made from selling herself to unknown men, and the
accused knew or ought reasonably to have known or
suspected that the said [SD] is a victim of trafficking
irrespective of whether the intended sexual exploitation or
action occurred or not.
8
3.4 Five counts of contravention of s 20(1)(a) read with ss 1, 21 and 22 of
the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957 also read with s 17(5) of the Sexual
Offences and Related Matters Amendment Act 32 of 2007(“the SOFMP”)
[Living on the earnings of prostitution]:
3.4.1 Count 4 is to procure the services of [SM] unlawfully and
intentionally as a sex worker for the purposes of monetary gain
and in so doing, the accused lived wholly and/or in part on the
earnings of prostitution.
3.4.2 Count 11 is to procure the services of [CJ] unlawfully and
intentionally as a sex worker for the purposes of monetary gain
and in so doing, the accused lived wholly and/or in part on the
earnings of prostitution.
3.4.3 Count 18 is to procure the services of [ND] unlawfully and
intentionally as a sex worker for the purposes of monetary gain
and in so doing, the accused lived wholly and/or in part on the
earnings of prostitution.
3.4.4 Count 31 is to procure the services of [SN] unlawfully and
intentionally as a sex worker for the purposes of monetary gain
and in so doing, the accused lived wholly and/or in part on the
earnings of prostitution.
3.4.5 Count 37 is to procure the services of [SD] unlawfully and
intentionally as a sex worker for the purposes of monetary gain
and in so doing, the accused lived wholly and/or in part on the
earnings of prostitution.
3.5 Six counts of kidnapping:
9
3.5.1 Count 5 is to deprive [SM] of her freedom of movement by
means of locking the doors of the house and placing unknown
men to watch her to prevent or deprive her from running away.
3.5.2 Count 12 is to deprive [CJ] of her freedom of movement by
means of locking the doors of the house and placing unknown
men to watch her to prevent or deprive her from running away.
3.5.3 Count 19 is to deprive [ND] of her freedom of movement by
means of locking the doors and placing unknown men to watch
her to prevent or deprive her freedom of movement.
3.5.4 Count 21 is to deprive [UL] of her freedom of movement by
means of locking the doors and placing unknown men to keep
watch over her to prevent or deprive her freedom of movement.
3.5.5 Count 32 is to deprive [SN] of her freedom of movement by
means of locking the doors of the house and placing unknown
men to watch her to prevent or deprive her from running away.
3.5.6 Count 38 is to deprive [SD] of her freedom of movement by
means of locking the doors of the house and placing unknown
men to watch her to prevent or deprive her from running away.
3.6 Six counts of assault with the intention to do grievous bodily harm:
3.6.1 Count 6 is to assault [SM] by hitting her with open fists, an
electric cord and kicking her with the intent to inflict grievous
bodily harm.
10
3.6.2 Count 13 is to assault [CJ] by hitting her with open fists, a belt
and electric cord with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.
3.6.3 Count 20 is to assault [ND] by hitting her with open fists and
kicking her with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.
3.6.4 Count 27 is to assault [UL] by hitting her with open fists and
threating to kill her with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.
3.6.5 Count 33 is to assault [SN], a 15-year-old female, by hitting her
with open fists, a belt and electric cord with the intent to inflict
grievous bodily harm.
3.6.6 Count 39 is to assault [SD] by hitting her with open fists, a belt
and electric cord with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.
3.7 Five counts of contravention of s 3 read with ss 1,50, 56(1), 57, 58, 59,
60 and 61 of ACT 32 of 2007 also read with ss 94, 256 and 261 of the
CPA (rape) read with the provisions of s 51(1) and schedule 2 of the
CLAA:
3.7.1 Count 22 is to commit an act of sexual penetration with the
complainant to wit [UL], a female aged 16 years old, by
penetrating her vagina with his penis without the consent of the
said complainant.
3.7.2 Count 23 is to commit an act of sexual penetration with the
complainant to wit [UL], a female aged 16 years old, by
penetrating her vagina with his penis without the consent of the
said complainant.
3.7.3 Count 24 is to commit an act of sexual penetration with the
complainant to wit [UL], a female aged 16 years old, by
11
penetrating her vagina with his penis without the consent of the
said complainant.
3.7.4 Count 25 is to commit an act of sexual penetration with the
complainant to wit [UL], a female aged 16 years old, by
penetrating her vagina with his penis without the consent of the
said complainant.
3.7.5 Count 26 is to commit an act of sexual penetration with the
complainant to wit [UL], a female aged 16 years old, by
penetrating her vagina with his penis without the consent of the
said complainant.
3.8 One count of contravention of s 6 read with ss 1, 2, 11 and 13(1)(cA)
14,19, 29 and 30 of the Human Trafficking Act read with the provisions
of s 51(2) and schedule 2 of the CLAA and read with the provisions of
ss 94, 256, 257, 261 and 268 of the CPA [Possession, Destruction,
Confiscation, Concealment of or Tampering with Documents]
3.8.1 Count 14 is to possess or intentionally destroy or confiscate or
conceal with any actual or purported identification document of
a victim of trafficking to wit [CJ] for the purposes of facilitating or
promoting trafficking in persons irrespective of whether the
intended exploitation or action occurred or not.
3.9 In respect of accused 1 only: Contravention of the provisions of s ection
(a) or 5(b) read with ss 1, 13, 17 to 25 and 64 of the Drugs and Drug
Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 [D ealing in drugs] in that on or about 20
October 2016 and at or near Bothasig in the district of Cape Town , the
accused unlawfully dealt in a dependence producing substance as listed
in part 1 of schedule 2 of the said Act to wit, 8 grams of cocaine and 2
grams of CAT.
12
IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED TWO:
3.10 Three counts of contravention of s 4(1) read with ss 1, 2, 11 and
13(1)(a) 14,19, 29 and 30 of the Human Trafficking Act read with the
provisions of s 51(1) and schedule 2 of the CLAA and read with the
provisions of ss 94,256, 257, 261 and 268 of the CPA read with ss 1,
50(2)(a), 50(2)(b), 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the CLAA and furth er read with the
provisions of ss 1 and 120 of the Children’s Act [Trafficking in persons]
3.10.1 Count 1 is the recruit ment, transport ation, harbour ing and
receiving of another person, to wit [SM], an adult female person
within the borders of the Republic, by means of:
3.10.1.1 deception or other forms of coercion to wit by
supplying the said [SM] with drugs; or work
opportunity; and
3.10.1.2 the abuse of vulnerability, to wit, the said [SM] was
unemployed and desperate for work and was
addicted to drugs and the accused saw to it that she
was supplied with drugs for the purpose of sexual
exploitation, to wit, by selling her to clients, whose
names are unknown to the State for financial
reward.
3.10.2 Count 7 is the recruit ment, transport ation, harbour ing and
receiving of another person, to wit [MA], an adult female person
within the borders of the Republic, by means of:
3.10.2.1 deception or other forms of coercion to wit by
offering the said [MA] monetary reward and or
work, and
13
3.10.2.2 the abuse of vulnerability, to wit, the said [MA] was
unemployed and desperate for money when she
was recruited to work as a sex worker and was
addicted to drugs and the accused saw to it that
she was supplied with drugs for the purpose of
sexual exploitation, to wit, by selling her to clients,
whose names are unknown to the State for
financial reward.
3.10.3 Count 8 is the recruit ment, transport ation, harbour ing and
receiving of another person, to wit [CJ], an adult female person
within the borders of the Republic, by means of:
3.10.3.1 the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion
to wit by promising employment and supplying the
said [CJ] with drugs; and
3.10.3.2 the abuse of vulnerability, to wit, the said [CJ] was
unemployed and was addicted to drugs and the
accused saw to it that she was supplied with drugs
for the purpose of sexual exploitation, to wit, by
selling her to clients, whose names are unknown to
the State for financial reward.
3.11 Two counts of contravention of s 5 read with ss 1, 2, 11, 12, 13(1)(c), 14,
29, 30 and 48 of the Human Trafficking Act read with the provision of ss
1, 50(2)(a), 50(2)(b), 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the CLAA and read with the
provisions of ss 94, 256 and 270 of the CPA further read with the
provisions of ss 1 and 120 of the Children’s Act [Debt Bondage].
3.11.1 Count 2 is to engage in conduct that caused another person, to
wit [SM], to enter into debt bondage by supplying her with drugs
in lieu of repayment for her transport and accommodation.
14
3.11.2 Count 9 is to engage in conduct that caused another person, to
wit [CJ], to enter into debt bondage supplying her with drugs in
lieu of repayment for her transport and accommodation.
3.12 Two counts of contravention of s 7 read with ss 1, 2, 11 and 13(1)(c),
14,19, 29 and 30 of the Human Trafficking Act read with the provisions of
s 51(2) and schedule 2 of the CLAA read with the provisions of ss 94,
256, 257, 261 and 268 of the CPA [Using the services of a victim of
trafficking]
3.12.1 Count 3 is to benefit financially or otherwise from the services of
a victim of trafficking , to wit [SM], by taking the money that she
made from selling herself to unknown men, and the accused
knew or ought reasonably to have known or suspected that the
said [SM] is a victim of trafficking irrespective of whether the
intended sexual exploitation or action occurred or not.
3.12.2 Count 10 is to benefit financially or otherwise from the services
of a victim of trafficking , to wit [CJ], by taking the money that
she made from selling herself to unknown men, and3 the
accused knew or ought reasonably to have known or suspected
that the said [CJ] is a victim of trafficking irrespective of whether
the intended sexual exploitation or action occurred or not.
3.13 Two counts of contravention of s 20(1)(a) read with ss 1, 21 and 22 of
ACT 23 of 1957 also read with s 17(5) of the SOFMA [Living on the
earning of prostitution]:
3.13.1 Count 4 is to procure the services of [SM] unlawfully and
intentionally as a sex worker for the purposes of monetary gain
3 The indictment states “and” whilst the act clearly states “or”.
15
and in so doing, the accused lived wholly and/or in part on the
earnings of prostitution.
3.13.2 Count 11 is to procure the services of [CJ] unlawfully and
intentionally as a sex worker for the purposes of monetary gain
and in so doing, the accused lived wholly and/or in part on the
earnings of prostitution.
3.14 Two counts of kidnapping:
3.14.1 Count 5 is to deprive [SM] of her freedom of movement by
means of locking the doors of the house and placing unknown
men to watch her to prevent or deprive her from running away.
3.14.2 Count 12 is to deprive [CJ] of her freedom of movement by
means of locking the doors of the house and placing unknown
men to watch her to prevent or deprive her from running away.
3.15 Two counts of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm:
3.15.1 Count 6 is to assault [SM] by hitting her with open fists, electric
cord and kicking her with the intent to inflict grievous bodily
harm.
3.15.2 Count 13 is to assault [CJ] by hitting her with open fists, a belt
and electric cord with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.
3.16 One count of contravention of s 6 read with ss 1, 2, 11 and 13(1)(cA)
14,19, 29 of 30 of the Human Trafficking Act and read with the
provisions of s 51(2) and schedule 2 of the CLAA and read with the
provisions of ss 94, 256, 257, 261 and 268 of the CPA [Possession
Destruction Confiscation and or tampering with documents]
16
3.16.1 Count 14 is to possess or intentionally destroy or confiscate or
conceal with any actual or purported identification document of
a victim of trafficking , to wit [CJ], for the purposes of facilitating
or promoting trafficking in persons irrespective of whether the
intended exploitation or action occurred or not.
[4] Counsel on behalf accused 2 raised a complaint that the indictment does not
comply with the provisions of s 261 A of the CPA in her Heads of Argument. I deal
with this complaint later in the judgment.
[5] Counsel on behalf of accused 1 and 3, also in h is Heads of Argument,
submitted that the S tate had not discharged their legal duty under s 19(10) read
with s 1 of the Human Trafficking Act with reference to regulations 2, 3 and 4 as it
did not meet the procedural requirements to have an assessment and letter of
recognition issued. As Counsel for the State only received the Heads of Argument
on the day the Court heard argument, she was afforded an opportunity to file further
written submission in this regard. I also deal with this issue later in the judgment.
[6] As many of the charges against the accused fall under s 51 of the CLAA, the
accused confirmed, prior to them pleading , that they u nderstood the impact of the
CLAA and that it was fully explained to them by their legal representatives. The
accused were represented throughout the trial by the same legal representatives
17
and there was always an interpreter available during the trial due to accused 1 and
3 speaking Pidgin English.4
[7] Many of the complainants were Afrikaans speaking and consequently an
Afrikaans/English interpreter was always available and assisted the witnesses and
the court.
[8] The trial, due to many factors, including but not limited to, the nature of tri al,
the use of 2 interpreters , witnesses o r complainants being in custody, witnes ses
and complainants not residing in the Western Province or as far away as Springbok
for whom transport had to be arranged, counsel being i nvolved in other part -heard
criminal trials in the High Court , and medical reasons such as inter alia Covid, took
a substantial period of time to be finalised and the running record finally amounted
to almost 6 000 pages.5 Every effort was made by all legal representatives involved
to accommodate the multitude of difficulties experienced whilst not prejudicing the
accused.
[9] It was confirmed that the case against accused 2 was transferred in terms of
s 111 of the CPA to this Court.
[10] The accused pleaded not guilty and accused 1 and 3 did not provide any
plea explanation. A plea explanation in terms of s 115 of the CPA and formal
admissions in terms of s 220 of the CPA were tendered by accused 2 on 30
4 Pidgin English is a non-specific name used to refer to any of the pidgin languages derived from English.
5 Many of the complainants and witnesses had to travel from either Springbok or East London using State resources. These
logistical arrangements and the fragile mental and or physical state of some of the witnesses caused long delays in the
finalization of the trial. At times witnesses were interposed in order to accommodate other witnesses and at times the court
had to adjourn for the medical condition(s) of some of the witnesses.
18
November 2021. In summary she denied all the charges against her but made the
following relevant admissions:
10.1 She was married to accused 1 on 10 September 2008 in Malmesbury,
in community of property and is still so married. She instituted divorce
proceedings against accused 1 on 28 March 2017 in Springbok
through Legal Aid South Africa but was unable to serve the summons
on accused 1 as he was in custody.
10.2 She has four children who were born on 25 November 2002, 28
March 2008, 4 March 2012 and 24 August 2016 respectively. Two of
them are the children of accused 1.
10.3 She owns a property known as 18 B […] Avenue, M[…], Springbok,
Western Cape. According to accused 2 she bought the property from
funds she received after claiming from the Road Accident Fund.
Accused 1 resided at 2 […] P[…] G[…] Street, B […], Cape Town
(intermittently referred to herein as “the premises” or “the home”) prior
to his arrest.
10.4 She worked as a sex worker at some stage and was prosecuted for
prostitution. She pleaded guilty and was given a suspended sentence.
10.5 She kn ows [SM], [MA] and [CJ], the complainants from Springbok .
They knew she previously worked as a sex worker.
19
10.6 She was with accused 1 when he was arrested on 20 October 2016
for dealing in drugs in Cape Town.
10.7 She was arrested in Springbok on 11 September 2018 under
Springbok Cas 219/04/2019 and held in custody until she was
released on bail by this Court on 20 August 2021.
10.8 In respect of [SM] accused 2 stated the following: They were friends ,
she brought [SM] to Cape Town and they both did sex work in Bellville
during 2015. She left [SM] in Bellville after a ccused 1 found her and
called the police . The next morning she asked [SM] to come to the
premises in Brooklyn. She and accused 1 had a fight because she
was drunk and because she brought [SM] to Cape Town. The next
day accused 2 went back to Springbok but [SM] did not want to go
back and she left her in Cape Town. They were still friends when [SM]
returned to Springbok.
10.9 In respect of [MA] she stated that: She asked her on about 13
November 2016 to go with her children to Cape Town to look after
them at the house of accused 1. [MA] told her that she did not know
Cape Town and wanted to see “what it is like first and where they will
be staying”. She went to Cape Town but it did not work out and s he
returned to Springbok.
[11] The state called 25 witnesses. All three of the accused testified and called
further witnesses.
20
[12] It was in essence the defence of the accused that the charges against them
were fabricated by the SAPS who w ere in cahoots with or under the influence of a
Sergeant Felix (“Felix”) whose brother, one Zain Samuels (“Zain”), was implicated
in an armed robbery or carjacking reported by accused 1 at the Maitland Police
Station on 1 9 August 2017. 6 According to the accused the charges were laid
against them to put pressure on accused 1 not to proceed with charges against
Zain.
[13] At the close of the State’s case there was an application on behalf of the
accused in terms of s 174 of the CPA for a discharge of all the charges.
[14] After hearing argument, I handed down judgment on 10 May 2023. Accused
1 was found not guilty and discharged in respect of counts 23, 24, 25 and 26.
Accused 3 was found not guilty and discharged in respect of counts 1 to 14, 22 to
27, 33 and 39. The application on behalf of accused 2 was dismissed.
[15] I do not summarise all the evidence, although I have considere d all of it. I do
however summarise certain portions of evidence heard in more detail as it
demonstrates the factual framework within which I decided the matter.
The State’s case:
De Leeuw (“De Leeuw”):
6 The complaint was registered under Cas no 158/08/2017 on 19 August 2017. The vehicle was a blue Peugeot registered in
the name of accused 1 with registration number CA 671982.
21
[16] The first witness called on behalf of the state was Sergeant De Leeuw (“De
Leeuw”). De Leeuw confirmed that he was previously a member of the South Africa
Police Services (the “SAPS”) and held the rank of sergeant when he left the SAPS
during April 2019. He had approximately 18 years of service. He was stationed a t
the Directorate of Priority Crimes in Bellville (the “DPCI”) which is also commonly
known as the H awks. De Leeuw confirmed that he was involved in the Maitland
CAS155/9/2017 matter.
[17] He confirmed that he was on duty on 12 September 2017 and was requested
by Sergeant Pam plin (“Pamplin”), who was in his unit and the investigating officer,
to assist him to locate a lady they believed was kidnapped. He accompanied
Pamplin at about 09h30 that morning to the premises where they believed she was
held.
[18] On arrival at the premises, they found an African male in front of the
property. They introduced themselves as police officers and Pamplin explained the
reason for the visit. A request was made to the gentleman that they be allowed to
go and search for this specific lady inside the property. According to De Leeuw the
gentleman was accused 1 and they went into the house with Pamplin.
[19] On entering the property, they observed three other gentlemen in the house
and he proceeded to the room at the back of the property, it being on the further
side of the room , which was a be droom. De Leeuw requested one of the
gentlemen to open the door as it was closed.
22
[20] On his entry he saw two females lying on the bed, one was a white lady , and
the other was an African lady. He told them he was a police officer and the white
lady threw her arms in the air and said “yes”. He identified the white lady as the
one they were loo king for as he had seen a photograph of her that morning. De
Leeuw testified that the white lady was very relieved when the SAPS arrived whilst
the African lady was very quiet while he was there. He did not have any
conversation with them.
[21] He testified that he told the two ladies to stay in the room and he went out to
call Sergeant Carelse (“Carelse”), a female officer, as he felt the ladies would be
more comfortable to speak to a female. According to him Carelse then interviewed
the white lady and during the conversation he heard that she kept saying “please
don’t leave me here”. He further testified that after Carelse had spoken to the white
lady, they turned around to leave the room but discovered that the bedroom was
locked and that there was no doorhandle on the door. He requested the African
female to open the door for him. She told him that the door could not open f rom the
inside and that you had to ask someone from the outside to open the door. He
knocked and somebody on the other side opened the door.
[22] According to him the person who opened the door later became known to
him as Yannick, who he identified as accused 3.
[23] Carelse left with the white female and he called another female, Warrant
Officer Durbaum (“Durbaum”) and requested her to speak to the African female to
determine if she was a victim of any crime. He was not present during the interview
in the room.
23
[24] Pamplin then arrested accused 1 and De Leeuw accompanied them to
Maitland Police Station. According to him the ladies were later transported to
Bellville and Durbaum and Carelse looked after them. De Leeuw went with Pamplin
to Maitland to assist him.
[25] According to De Leeuw only accused 1 was arrested as he was leasing the
premises.
[26] De Leeuw could positively identify accused 1 but was not certain about
accused 3. It was confirmed during cross -examination that accused 3 was present
on the day of accused 1’s arrest.
[27] The state handed in as Exhibit “ B” photographs of the property which
depicted inter alia the lounge area, the door at the back and the door of the
bedroom. It was not disputed that these photographs were indeed taken in the
premises and were what they purported to be.
[28] De Leeuw confirmed that he was shown a photograph of a white lady, [ND]
(also known as “Roxy”), which th e SAPS w as searching for on the morning of 12
September 2017. The African lady later became known to him as [UL].
[29] During cross -examination it was put to De Leeuw that he was not at the
property on the day of the arrest and that accused 1 and 3 had never seen him
before. He denied this.
[30] It was further put to De Leeuw that according to accused 1 , he did not
accompany the SAPS into the house but had seen a group of police officers go ing
24
into the property and then followed. The group, according to accused 1 and 3 ,
consisted of two female police officers , Pamplin and an unknown-coloured male
police officer. De Leeuw denied this. It was also put to De Leeuw that Pamplin had
asked accused 1, if he had made a case at Maitland Police Station and showed
certain documents to the female officers who were there with them. De Leeuw had
no knowledge regarding this.
[31] It was further put to De Leeuw that the two ladies who were found in the
premises, were not found in the back room but were sitting in the lounge. De Leeuw
was adamant that they were found in the bedroom.7
[32] It was also put to him that accused 1 was not arrested at the premises and
that Felix took him to the police station where he was taken into a small room and
questioned. De Leeuw testified that he does not know a person called Felix and
testified that accused 1 drove with him and Pamplin to the Police Station where he
was processed.8
[33] It was put to De Leeuw that Felix had asked accused 1 who had taken his
car and how it had happened , whereafter he told Felix it was Zain who had pointed
a gun at him and taken his motor vehicle. According to accused 1, Felix laughed at
him and said he would be in prison for a long time before he comes out. De Leeuw
had no knowledge of such an incident.
7 Later during cross-examination it was put to De Leeuw that only [UL] was sitting in the lounge watching
television when the police officers arrived.
8 Pamplin testified that Felix, who was stationed at Maitland Police Station, transported the accused there.
25
[34] It was further put to De Leeuw that accused 1 told Pamplin that he wanted to
make a statement but was told that he is only allowed to talk in court. De Leeuw
could not comment. According to accused 1 he then asked Pamplin to take his
phone from his pocket and call the white lady ’s father, as she normally phoned her
father from his number, so her father could clarify the position. Pamplin declined to
make the call. He did however write down the number of the white lady’s father and
told the accused not to tell him how to do his job. De Leeuw had no knowledge of
these events. It was also put to De Leeuw that accused 1 was only charged with
rape two months after his arrest. Again, De Leeuw knew nothing about this.
[35] It was further put to De Leeuw that there was an incident approximately three
weeks before the arrest of accused 1, at about 04h00 in the morning. Accused 1
and 3, who were with friends called Alex, Moola and Robert were at the premises
and heard a lady cry for help. They went outside and found her crying , saying that
someone had jumped from the ir yard, stolen her bag and ran away. The 5 of them
got into three motor vehicles and proceeded to look for the perpetrator. Accused 1
and 3 were together in a vehicle which is owned by accused 1. They drove around
and saw a young man carrying a female bag and tried to apprehend them. He was
carrying a firearm which he pointed at them. They climbed out as instructed and the
young man took off with the car. The assailant was wearing a mask and they could
not see his face. Accused 1 went to the police station the next day to open a case
regarding the incident under case number 158/08/2017. According to accused 1,
the day after he laid the charge, a lady named Pamela came to the shop next to his
house and enquired as to where his car was. When he told her what had
happened, she advised him that she had seen a guy called Za in driving the vehicle
26
and that Za in was accompanied by his girlfriend. According to accused 1, Pamela
was approached by Zain and his girlfriend to keep a bag with her for them. Pamela
saw official papers in the bag that showed the car belonged t o accused 1 and she
further told him that Za in is the younger brother of a policeman that liv es further
down the road.
[36] It was put to De Leeuw that a ccused 1, upon receiving this information went
to the police station to tell the SAPS what he had learnt only to find that th e same
police officer, Felix, had been assigned to his case. He accordingly asked that Felix
be removed from the hijacking case. The case was consequently removed from
Felix and assigned to one Ntengeshe. Sometime later accused 1 received a call
from Malmesbury Police Station telling him that the motor vehicle had been found.
According to accused 1 arrangements were made the very same day for him to go
to Malmesbury to fetch his motor vehicle. On the day he was due to go and fetch
the motor vehicle , he was arrested , and Felix was present during his arrest. De
Leeuw could not comment.
[37] It was put to De Leeuw that a spoon was used on the outside of the bedroom
door to open it and that it would be the testimony of the accused 1 and 3 that
anything could be stuck into the door to get a grip and open it. De Leeuw agreed.
It was further put to De Leeuw that when he allegedly attended at the scene , there
was in fact a handle on the door and there was no need for someone to open the
door for him. He denies this.
[38] De Leeuw’s evidence was that the door was locked and the three men that
were sitting in the lounge were asked to open the door for him. He conceded that
27
the door could merely have been closed and that he did not know whether it was
locked or not.
[39] It was further put to De Leeuw that there were no burglar bars on the window
of the bedroom . De Leeuw could not confirm or deny whether there were burglar
bars or not.
Booise:
[40] Mr Bertram Booise (“Booise”) testified that he knew [MA], one of the
complainants and that she was previously his girlfriend. He lives in Springbok. He
confirmed that during or about 2016 [MA] on a Sunday afternoon came to him and
told him that she was on her way to Cape Town as accused 2 had requested her to
collect drugs there and would pay her an amount of R2 000.00 for doing this.
[41] He further testified that on the Monday morning , he received a phone call
from her and that her first words were “ Bertram please help me”. He asked her
what was going on and she told him that she used a phone which belonged to one
[MS] to contact him as she was told by [MS] that she was not there to collect drugs
but was sent to Cape Town for prostitution. According to Booise, [MA] said he must
phone her mo ther, but he went to her aunt, V […], and asked her to contact the
mother. V[…] then phoned [MA]’s mother in his presence and told her what had
transpired. [MA]’s mother later phoned him to obtain the number wherefrom she
had phoned, which he provided. [MA]’s mother phoned him again and told him that
28
the number was simply going to voicemail. He then kept on trying to phone the
number until he finally reached her. He then, on the mother’s request , arranged a
taxi for [MA] and told her she had to be ready at 03h00 for collection from the
premises. She arrived back in Springbok by way of the taxi on the Tuesday morning
and he collected her at the taxi rank.
[42] It was put to him on behalf of accused 2 that [MA] was requested to go to
Cape Town to look after her children at the premises even though she used to drink
a lot and do drugs. He knew nothing about this.
[SM]:
[43] [SM] confirmed that she lives in Matjieskloof in Springbok. She testified that
she knew accused 1 as she had seen him twice in Springbok when he came to
collect girls. She could not say when and she had never had a conversation with
him. In her testimony in chief she stated that she saw accused 1 at the homes of
[CJ] and [MA] who were both her friend s. She further testified that she knew
accused 2 but was no longer friends with her. She did not know accused 3.
[44] She confirmed that accused 1 picked the girls up in a blue car but could not
say which make or model the car was. She confirmed that she had looked after
accused 2’s children in Matjieskloof for a period of about 2 to 3 months.
[45] According to [SM] accused 2 asked her whether she is not looking for a
better job and further told her that work in Cape Town means more money.
29
[46] She testified that she was not up to it and accused 2 never told her what kind
of a job it was that she was talking about. She however told the court that accused
2 wanted to take photos of her but she refused. She further testified that when [CJ]
came back from Cape Town, she told her what in fact happened in Cape Town and
that she was forced by accused 1 to sleep with various men and use drugs.
[47] According to [SM] accused 2 asked her a few times whether she did not
want to work in Cape Town.
[48] During cross-examination it was put to [SM] that accused 1 and accused 3
did not know her , which she denied. It was further put to her that accused 1
admitted that he was the husband of accused 2 but that he denies that he ever
fetched girls in Springbok. [SM] was adamant that she had seen him there. During
cross-examination she changed her version and stated that he did not collect them
at their homes. She said she made a mistake the previous day and that she was
just talking to fast.
[49] The witness confirmed that she saw [CJ] on the day when she came to say
goodbye at her house. She had her clothing with her and she was in a blue car
with accused 1. It was put to her that accused 1 would say that this never
happened.
[50] On further examination she advised the court that [CJ] was with her clothes
in her mother’s yard when she told her that she was going to get herself a better
life. This was the day that she came to say goodbye.
30
[51] The witness had no knowledge of the relationship between accused 1 and 2
or what financial contributions accused 1 were making to accused 2 during th at
time. She was surprised when it was put to her to accused 2 had applied for a
protection order against accused 1.
[52] It was put to the witness that accused 2 denies that she ever wanted to take
photos of the witness and that she in any event would not have wanted to take
pictures of her because she was pregnant at the time . [SM] stated that accused 2
asked to take pictures of her long before she was pregnant and was lying.
Carelse:
[53] Warrant Officer Carelse (“Carelse”) confirmed that she has been in the
service for 17 years and based in DPCI in Bellville. She confirmed that on 12
September 2017 she was on duty and assisted with an operation in the Maitland
area.
[54] She testified that the SAPS received information that there was a lady by the
name of [ND] who was kept at a house known as number 2[…] P[….] G[…] Street,
Brooklyn against her will. She went to the premises with De Leeuw . They waited
for backup. When the rest of the member s of the team arrived, they proceeded to
the premises. On their arrival there was a male standing in front of the house.
Pamplin spoke to the male outside the house. After Pamplin spoke to him the team
31
proceeded inside the house. Once inside they saw three males sitting in the lounge
area. De Leeuw went towards the back room and he managed to open up the
door. He had a look inside the room and then he called her to come to the room
with him.
[55] She was in the lounge area at the time. When she entered the room, she
saw two ladies on the bed. One was a white female and the other was a black
female. Th e immediately saw that the white lady had a cast on her leg . She
regarded this as significant as the information to the SAPS was that one of the
ladies’ had a broken leg. According to her she identified herself to the two ladies
and De Leeuw was with her. She closed the door and spoke privately to the ladies.
The white lady was crying and just wanted to get out of the house . She identified
herself as [ND]. According to the witness she was “hysterical”. She testified that the
white lady told her that she was kept against her will inside the house and that she
had no freedom of movement. As she was crying Carelse tried to calm her down
and asked her who the person was that was keeping them inside the house. [ND]
advised her it was the short black male person by the name of Eddie who was in
charge of the house.
[56] As she was so “hysterical” Carelse decided to rather get her out of the
house. She confirmed De Leeuw’s version that he could not open the door from the
inside and that the black lady who she identified as [UL] told them that the door
could only be opened from the outside. She confirmed that De Leeuw asked the
people outside the room to open the door from the outside and she then took [ND]
outside of the house where she met up with Colonel Chetty. When she left [UL]
32
was still in the room. She confirmed that after she handed [ND] over to Colonel
Chetty she went back into the house and she assisted Pamplin by taking photos of
the three male persons sitting in the lounge area. She took these photographs with
her official cell phone. She did not know their names. She confirmed that she sent
the pictures she took to the investigating officer but told the court that she no longer
had these photos as she was pickpocketed, and her phone stolen at some point in
time. She could not say with certainty when this happened.
[57] It was put to her thar Moola and Alex were tenants at the premises and on
the day in question Alex was not there but there was another friend called Robert
who sometimes stayed over and that Moola was the boyfriend of [ND]. Carelse told
the court that [ND] did not mention anything about having a boyfriend in the house.
It was put to her that [ND] was only at the premises for a period of 2 weeks before
the arrest and was staying there as she was Moola’s girlfriend and that she at all
times had access to their phones which she at times borrowed in order to contact
her father. Carelse could not comment.
[58] It was put to her that accused 1’s version of the day of the arrest is that the
SAPS members who attended at the premises consisted of Pamplin, Felix, two
female black woman and one other coloured male but not De Leeuw.
[59] Carelse testified that she did not know anyone called Felix and confirmed
who was present. She also denied that they entered the house on their own and
confirmed her previous version which corresponds with that of De Leeuw . She
33
denied that [UL] was in the lounge when they arrived and denie d that [UL] told the
SAPS that accused 1 was her boyfriend.9
[60] It was put to her that she only arrived later and after [UL] was taken into the
bedroom. She denied this.
[61] It was also put to her that there was a door handle on the inside of the
bedroom on the day of the arrest. She denied it.
[62] Carelse testified that [ND]’s leg was broken, that she could not open the door
from the inside and according to her observations the women were locked inside
the room. She explained that the door could not open from the inside and that they
could not get out of the room.
[63] Carelse knew nothing about the case made by accused 1 against Zain or
about any car hijacking. She did not know that Zain is allegedly the brother of Felix
and testified that she did not know Felix. She persisted that accused 1 must have
been taken away by someone else.
Nyawo:
[64] Mr Nyawo (“Nyawo”), is the owner of the premises and he confirmed that he
had rented the premises to accused 1 since 2009. He confirmed that he knew
accused 2 but could not remember her name . To his knowledge she lived in
Springbok and visited the premises with the children during holidays.
9 [UL] stated in her evidence that she did tell the police that accused 1 was her boyfriend.
34
[65] According to this witness accused 1 lived with 2 or 3 other men at the
premises and there were regularly ladies . The amount of people at the rental
premises was problematic for him. He recounted a meeting held with accused 1 to
discuss his concerns during which the accused became so angry that he pulled out
a knife and had to be held down by one of the other tenants until he had calmed
down.
[66] He confirmed that he saw many “girls” who came and went and he was of
the view that they were not girlfriends. He confirmed that he went to the property
almost every second week and once found 3 women inside who could not open the
door for him as they told him they did not have keys.
[67] During cross-examination it was put to the witness that accused 1 will testify
that there was a meeting between them but that he was intoxicated and that
accused 1 therefore wanted the meeting to be reconvened. He denied this.
Durbaum:
[68] Captain Durbaum (“Durbaum”) confirmed that she has been in the service of
the South African Police for 30 years and was stationed at Elsies River CID when
she testified. She was previously stationed at DPCI (the Hawks) in Bellville.
[69] She testified that on 12 September 2017 she was a warrant officer and on
duty. She was asked to assist at an address called 2 […] P[…] G[…] Street,
Brooklyn and the request came from the human trafficking section , by way of
35
Pamplin and Colonel Chetty, who was the head of the section that stage. She was
advised that information was received that there was a young lady named [ND] who
was kept at a certain premises against her will. When they arrived at the premises
De Leeuw went inside whilst she was still outside. Shortly after they went in ,
Carelse came out with a lady with a cast, who was walking with crutches. De Leeuw
said there was another lady inside the room and asked if she would go speak to
her. She entered the house and was shown the last door wher e she found an
African girl lying on the bed. The room was pointed out to her by De Leeuw. She
produced her police ID to the girl and told her that they were there to help them.
The girl then became known to her as [UL]. According to the witness the first words
[UL] said to her was that that she is not working on the street as a prostitute. [UL]
further told her that she had been at the premises since the previous Friday and
that she met a girl called Z[…] at a club in Brooklyn and that this girl had brought
her to the premises.
[70] Durbaum testified that she asked the girl whether she wanted to go home
and was advised by her that she did ask “Eddie” if she can go home but he said she
must first tell h im where her friend Z […] was. [UL] said she did not know where
Z[…] was but he still did not allow her to go home. Durbaum testified that she then
requested her to get dressed and to come with her to the Bellville offices . When
they arrived at the Bellville offices another colleague collected the girls to obtain
their statements. She confirmed that when they spoke it was only her an d [UL].
She further confirmed that when she first went into the premises, she saw men in
the lounge area but could not remember how many. She confirmed that [UL]
looked scared to her and that she had no discussions with [ND].
36
[71] During cross-examination it was put to her that accused 1 denies seeing her
on the scene but that he could have been gone by the time she arrived and that
accused 3 also did not recall seeing her there. It was put to her that there was a
coloured male police officer on the scene. The witness denied seeing such a
person and stated that it was De Leeuw that was present.
[72] It was put to the witness that accused 1 will testify that he met [UL] at a club
in Maitland called Stephanies, about two weeks before the day of his arrest.
[73] It was further put to her that accused 1 will testify that she came on her own
accord to his house and would sleep there if she was out clubbing because it was
easier to stay at his home. It was put to her that accused 1 denies that he at any
stage prevented [UL] from leaving the house.
[CJ]:
[74] [CJ] was 27 years old when she testified , and her evidence related to
charges 18 to 40. She confirmed that she completed grade 9 at school and that she
is originally from Matjieskloof in Springbok and unemployed.
[75] [CJ] confirmed that she knew accused 1 as he was married to accused 2
who lived in her district and that she had met him there during January 2017. She
37
confirmed that she was friends with accused 2 and that their mothers had worked at
the same guest house. Accused 2 was a “house friend”.
[76] She did not know accused 3. [CJ] confirmed that she was no longer friends
with accused 2 as she no longer wanted to be friends with her. She was never
friends with accused 1. She explained that about a week before the 10th of January
2017 she had an altercation with her mother which resulted in her be ing “kicked
out” of her home. She went to live with her aunt who lived three houses away from
accused 2’s house in Springbok. According to her she was reckless at that point in
time as she was using drugs and alcohol. She testified that she told her story to
accused 2, and particularly her difficulties at home , and that she told her that she
wanted to go to Cape Town in order to get away from Ma tjieskloof. According to
[CJ] accused 2 offered her a lift to Cape Town with accused 1 when he brought the
children back to accused 2 after the holidays.
[77] On 10 January 2017 accused 1 brought the children back from the holidays
and she was at accused 2’s house when she asked accused 1 if she could get a lift
to Cape Town. She intended to go to a friend in Cape Town.
[78] Accused 2 had her called on the day that accused 1 arrived and there was a
party at accused 1’s house. She returned to her aunt’s house and the next morning
accused 1 arrived on his own and told her that accused 2 did not treat him fairly and
that they had fight. They did not go back to accused 2’s house and she left with
accused 1 to Cape Town. She took her clothes, toiletries, phone and ID and they
arrived the following morning. She advised accused 1 that she wanted to go to her
friend, Calvin’s house, but he was not there. According to the witness accused 1
38
told her that she must sleep at his house as it was safe and as she did not suspect
any fo ul play due to accused 1 being the husband of her friend , she stayed. He
promised her he would take her to her friend’s house in the morning. However, the
next morning he had his own errands to run, and she simply stayed there for about
for 4 days. She testified that when she arrived at accused 1’s home there were two
other men. A ccused 1 told her that he was busy and that she must not go
anywhere as it was not safe. She did not see him for approximately 2 days and
spent her time with one of the men that lived there called Alex. The other man at
the house was known to her as Roberto.
[79] Other people also arrived at the house during these 4 days and the re were
men who came to play cards and they spoke in their own language. On 14th or
15th of January 2017, accused 1 and his brother arrived at home with a Xhosa and
a coloured girl. She saw that the coloured girl was very emotional and was crying
excessively.10 She did not know why and the girl left with the brother of accused 1.
The Xhosa lady became known to her as Z […] and she started partying that day
with Z[…]. She stated that Z[…] told her that she met accused 1 at a shop in P ort
Elisabeth. They were drinking beer and wine and accused 1 gave them “rocks” to
smoke. She felt a warm feeling in her chest (she explained it felt like h er breasts
were swelling) and she had a prickling sensation in her vaginal area. She started to
take off her clothes and then realised that there were other people present as well.
According to her everything happened around accused 1 and everything was under
his supervision. She felt like she wanted to have sex and she in fact had sex with 2
men while under the supervision of accused 1. She had thought that there was
10 “Sy het vreeslik gehuil”.
39
something in her drink. She did not feel normal , and the “rocks” made her more
sexually active. She could not remember how many people were there , but the sex
took place in the room. According to the witness accused 1 told her and Z […]
whilst they were smoking “rocks” that they were now going to work for him. This
was after she had sex with the two men.
[80] Accused 1 told them that they should ask R200.00 for a “quickie” and
R300.00 or R350.00 for an hour. He told her that they would work as prostitutes.
She understood that what she had to do was to sell her body by way of sex for
money and would then have to give that money to accused 1 . She stated that
accused 1 explained to her how the prostitution would work and that there were
rules such as that she could not leave the house and had to hand over all the
money she received to either him, Alex or from time to time Roberto. She testified
that accused 1 told her that clients will come and that she had to give the money to
him and he would give them a rock piece or a blue pill. She did not know what was
in a blue pill but it gave her the same feeling that she felt on the day she had sex
with the two men when he told her that she would now work for him as a prostitute.
[81] She explained that during the day clients would come to the house from time
to time, between 2 to 3 a day , and during the night they worked from 19h00 in the
evenings till 07h00 the next morning. At night they would either walk or be taken to
a specific corner where accused 1 told them it was safe. Accused 1 decided on
what clothes they had to wear, such clothes came either from the cupboard in their
room or he would buy clothes for them in the form of short dresses and/or skirts.
They never got any money and could not buy their own clothes or food. They were
40
not allowed to leave the house without supervision. According to her she started
working as a prostitute for accused 1 on the day she started smoking the “rocks”.
[82] She confirmed that during the night when they picked up clients on the
specific corner, she would either perform sexual acts with the client in the client’s
car or they would go to accused 1’s house, a guest house or a hotel. The
preferred place was accused 1’s house and the work were either oral sex or
penetrative sex. She had to hand over all the money to accused 1 or Alex and he
would give her a “rock” piece every night before they went out, every time they
brought a client home and every time they handed money over to him.
[83] On the 20th or the 28th of January 2017, after working for accused 1 since the
15th of January 2017, she told him that she wanted to go home. His response was
extremely aggressive. He told her not to mess up his business . She testified that
she just kept quiet and carried on performing his instructions which was that she
had to carry on, follow the rules and carry on working. She testified that at the end
of January 2017 she tried to escape for the first time. She explained that she went
out with one of her clients to whom she explained her situation and he agreed that
she could stay with him for a while. She had the cell phone which accused 1 gave
her with her and after about 2 or 3 days he contacted her and told her that he knew
where she was and that she had to come back or there would be trouble. She then
went back to accused 1’s house.
[84] On her arrival he assaulted her by slapping her and pushing her around.
She did not have any injuries but was not allowed to leave the house for about a
week. She was not given any “rocks” and was not allowed to work. She decided to
41
start working again to try and take some of the money for herself so she could go
home. She would for example tell accused 1 that she only had 3 clients but in fact
had 5 clients , but he always knew when she was lying to him as he knew exactly
the amount of men she saw during the night and he even knew the number plates
and make of the cars they used. If ever he found any money on her he would
become extremely aggressive.
[85] During February 2017 she tried running away for a second time , this time to
Bloubergstand. She testified that she realised what was happening at accused 1’s
home was not who she is, and she did not want to be part of it. She again told one
of her clients her situation and he took her with him and undertook to look after her
and wanted to have a relationship with her. She stayed there for about 3 to 4 days
when accused 1 found her again. This time he had someone phone her pretending
to be someone she knew, and she agreed to meet with this person. She thought it
was one of her clients. She however told her friend in Bl oubergstrand, one Joe,
that she had a friend coming to his house and she left her contacts and home
address on a piece of paper in case something happened to her.
[86] She testified that a “gold car” arrived in the parking area and as she was
getting into the car , she realised that it was one of accused 1’s people. As she
opened the door of the car accused 1 was standing next to the car with a long knife.
She was forced to climb into the car and accused 1 followed in his blue Peugeot.
She was taken back to his premises. At the premises accused 1 went to the kitchen
and came back with 20 litres of warm water in a bucket which she had to balance
on her head whil st kneeling on a broomstick. Whilst recounting this incident [CJ]
42
became extremely emotional and was crying. She testified that she asked him
what was in the bucket and that he told her that it was her demons and that they
were causing her to make trouble. She testified that she begged him to stop, and
she swore to him that she would never run away again. According to her Z[…] was
present during this assault and had asked accused 1 to stop by saying: “Daddy that
is enough now, please stop”.
[87] According to the witness , accused 1 just laughed at them and became
hysterical. Her perception was that he found it exciting and that he was showing her
that she could not run away. According to her accused 1 then went through her
personal belongings and took her identity document, her c ontact number s and
family photos. He told her that she would never see her family again. Accused 1
further assaulted her with an electrical cord by hitting her with the cord on her lower
legs which caused severe swelling. According to her the bruises were there for 2 to
3 weeks after the incident and when she finally got home to Springbok the doctor
who examined her could still see the marks. She testified that after this incident the
accused told her to hang up her wet clothing and to go and rest in the room. The
next morning accused 1 told her to get dressed and they went to Bl oubergstrand
where he had found her. Accused 1 told her friend Joe to stay away from her and
to stop all contact with her. On their return to accused 1’s home he told her that
everything would be fine and she only needed to listen to him. She stayed at home
for the week and was not allowed to go out to work. She explained that she was
extremely emotional at the time, that she felt accused 1 was manipulating her as he
was constantly telling Z […] that she was his baby and his queen which made her
feel unwanted and casted out. She testified that on the following Friday or Saturday
43
she knelt on accused 1’s feet and told him “Daddy I will not run away again” to win
his favour.
[88] She testified that this was a turning point for her as she knew that she simply
needed a chance to break away. After she promised not to run away again
accused 1 gave her a “rock” piece to smoke and told her to put on her white dress .
She was allowed to go out to see a client in Brooklyn that evening. She testified
that she told this client about her situation, and he advised that he did not want to
get involved and she had to get out of his car. She finally met a female in a park
and explained her situation to this female who took her to her home. This woman
did not have money to pay for her ticket back to Springbok but she booked a ticket
for her on the basis that the people in Springbok would pay for the taxi. She was
picked up the following morning from this woman’s house by Bezuidenhout Taxi’s
who took her to Springbok.
[89] When she arrived in Springbok her aunt was not there , and she went to her
mother’s house where she told and showed her sister what had happened to her.
As her mother was still of the view that her conduct was reckless, she moved in
with her aunt who provided her with accommodation. She also showed her aunt
her bruises and explained to her that she did prostitution work in Cape Town. Her
aunt then paid for the taxi and also t ook her to a doctor who provided her with
medication for her infections and wounds, and also took her to the police station. At
that point she only wanted her clothing and possessions back. She testified that
whilst she was there a constable contacted accused 1 who was furious that she
was in Springbok. She was then asked questions by a Mr Jonas as to what had
44
happened to her and as she was shy and embarrassed about what she had done.
He referred her to the sexual offences section of the police , and it was explained to
her that what happened to her amounted to human trafficking. According to the
witness she was in Cape Town for about 2 to 3 months as she saw the doctor in
Springbok on 9 March 2017.
[90] [CJ] confirmed, with reference to exhibit “B” , that she stayed at accused 1’s
house and that she lived in the bedroom as depicted in photos’ 3 and 4 . According
to her accused 1, Alex and Z[….] lived in the house whilst she was there and some
of accused 1’s brothers also slept there on occasion . She shared the double bed
with Z[…]. She testified that the house was a mess and dirty. People would arrive
to buy drugs and would also smoke there. This would happen any time during the
night and day. The drugs were sold by accused 1 or Alex.
[91] She testified that h erself and Z […] did not cook and was fed twice a day by
either accused 1, Alex or on occasion Roberto. They ate fish and some kind of
beans which she was not familiar with. They were never left alone in the house and
was always under supervision. When they brought clients home, they would have
sex with them in the room and accused 1 would ask clients whether it was a quickie
or an hour session and would receive the money. Accused 1 or his friends would
lie on the couch outside the room where she was busy and they could hear
everything that happened inside the house.
[92] She testified that she believed that she was also watched whilst on the street
as accused 1 on occasion phoned her and said that she was not on the corner and
45
even knew how many clients she saw an evening and the make of their cars and
registration numbers.
[93] They did not have any off days and if she did not want to work accused 1
would give her more “rocks” to smoke and would tell her to work. This happened
night and day but mostly during the night. During the day accused 1 would phone
Alex and told him to get the girls ready as the clients were on their way. During the
night she would service approximately 20 clients and all the money she received
she had to hand over to accused 1 or Alex or Roberto. She never received any
money of her own and if she did not hand over any money , accused 1 would
physically aggressive. She explained it by stating that he would hit her and push
her around. She testified that accused 1 only once gave her R5.00 with which she
could buy 2 cigarettes. She did not receive any salary or compensation for her
work. She explained that she got the “rocks” and the blue pills from accused 1 as it
caused her to become sexually excitable and was extremely addictive . S he just
wanted more. She admitted that she had on one or two occasions experimented
with “rocks” in Springbok prior to starting her work with accused 1 but did not know
what the blue pills consisted of as she was only given these pills on two or three
occasions. According to her recollection he gave her these pills after she ran away
for the first time but did not know why he gave it to her. Accused 1 told her that if
she ran away he would know where she is and threatened her that if she did not
want trouble she had to come back to his house. She admitted that when accused
1 told her that she would now be working for him after the 15 th of January 2017 she
agreed thereto. She said she agreed to work for him as she was under the
46
influence of alcohol and drugs and did not really care because she had the
altercation with her family at home.
[94] She testified that she worked under a lot of stress . She found the working
conditions not acceptable and told him that she wanted to go home. She testified
that what she did there did not feel right to her and she did not want what happened
her. The witness testified that there were once two other girls which accused 1
brought to the house but that they only slept there for two nights. She did not know
them. According to her Z […]’s role at accused 1’s house was the same as hers,
prostitution. She also did not have money and did not buy her own toiletries.
Accused 1 would buy soap and roll-on for them.
[95] When asked whether she had any contact with accused 2 while she stayed
at accused 1’s home she testified that accused 2 was in Cape Town during the
period she was there and had slept in the car according to accused 1 whereafter he
had sent her to Springbok with a taxi. She said accused 2 did not make contact
with her nor did she try and find out how she was.
[96] She testified that she saw accused 2 again the day after she had been to the
doctor and the police and had told her what was happening at accused 1’s house
and had shown accused 2 her bruises. According to the witness accused 2 wanted
nothing to do with accused 1 and his things.
[97] According to the witness accused 2, when she found out there was a
pending matter against her and accused 1, asked her to withdraw the charges
against them. The witness admitted that she took bribe money from accused 2 and
47
that she told the investigating officer that accused 2 had bothered her regarding the
matter and that she did not want to proceed with the matter. The bribe money that
accused 2 gave her was R50 or R60 and a couple of beers and she was told that if
she brought confirmation that she would withdraw the case she would receive R1
500.00. She testified that she took the money as she had felt that accused 1 had
sent the money she had earned working as a prostitute in Cape Town to accused 2,
as she was not working and that in essence i t was her work that supported the
accused and their children.
[98] She confirmed that she kn ew [SM] who also lived in Matjieskloof and grew
up with her. [SM] noticed that she was walking with difficulty, and she also told her
what had happened to her in Cape Town as well as her aunt and neighbour.
[99] The witness again confirmed that she does not blame accused 2 for what
she had done as she was already reckless and irresponsible, but she feels that
accused 2 had taken advantage of her circumstances.11
[100] She confirmed that what had happened to her had changed her life and had
caused her in 2017 to use more and more drugs and she was feeling alone and
confused. She admitted with difficulty that after her sister had accused her and
used words such as prostitute and that she is HIV positive that she grabbed a knife,
that her mother had come in between them and that she had stabbed her mother
who died in the process.
11 “Sy het my huislike omstandighede uitgebuit”.
48
[101] According to her accused 2 was aware of her circumstances in Springbok
and was aware that she was taking drugs and abusing alcohol and had an issue
with her mother and her sister. She admitted that the time that she was in accused
1’s house, it was not the first time that she slept with men for money. She however
explained that previously she received the money for her services whilst she had to
hand over any monies earned whilst staying with accused 1. She also confirmed
that she previously did not have to stand on the street and find clients. She
confirmed that while she was in Cape Town , even though she intended to go and
stay with a friend Kenny (also known as Calvin) , she never saw him during the
period she was staying at accused 1’s house.
[102] During cross-examination she conceded that she had lived during late 2015
early 2016 with Kenny and that he was also from Cameroon and that she had
previously known accused 1. She stated that she had met Kenny then as accused 2
had sent her to Cape Town and that she was in a relationship with him. It was put
to her that accused 1 would say that she and Kenny was in a relationship and
during 2016 they stayed opposite or near the Seven Eleven in Brooklyn. She
denied that she and Kenny and accused 1 were good friends. According to her
accused 1 came to her and Kenny’s place of residence on one or two occasions
and she did not speak to him. She further conceded that while she was in a
relationship with Kenny she worked as a prostitute and that she shared the money
she earned with him.
[103] It was put to her that Kenny had problems with the landlord at the place that
they were staying with rent and that Kenny had asked accused 1 whether they
49
could not stay with him until he managed to sort things out. This was denied by the
witness. It was further put to her that Kenny and her then moved into accused1’s
place for about two weeks and that during this two -week period she became
involved in a relationship with Alex who was also living with accused 1. The
witness denied these allegations. She however did agree that she did have sexual
relations with Alex from time to time during the period in 2017 when she was
staying in accused 1’s house. It was put to her that after the two weeks in 2016 that
her and Kenny stayed with accused 1, they moved out.
[104] It was further put to her that approximately two months after they had moved
out the witness contacted accused 1 telephonically and requested him to return her
goods. She denied this. According to accused 1 he would not agree to give her
goods as he felt that it belonged to both her and Kenny and that Kenny would have
to accompany her to collect the goods.
[105] It was put to the witness that accused 1 denied that the she came to Cape
Town with him during 201 7, denied telling her to stay in the house, denie d giving
her drugs at any time, denie d that there w ere sexual encounters with men in his
presence, denied that he told her that she must work for him as a prostitute, denie d
that he took money from her at any stage, denied that he watched or had control
over her at any time, denie d assaulting her and denied threatening her or anyone
else.
[106] During cross-examination she confirmed that Joe, the person who she went
to after her second escape, was someone she encountered on the street and would
have done business with. She went with him to his flat and confirmed that he was a
50
white man an d worked as the caretaker at the Infinity Complex at Bloubergstrand.
This was also where he lived. She provided very detailed information and
confirmed that she told the investigating officer about Joe and that they even went
to his house and that Joe was willing to make a statement about what happened.
[107] She even remembered the logo on the 20-litre fish oil can with which
accused 1 threw the water at her.
[108] Counsel for accused 1 took further instructions upon the court asking
clarification as to the period during which the witness allegedly stayed with Kenny at
his house , as it was previously put to her that it was during 2016. Counsel was
uncertain and after a long discussion between himself and accused 1 put it to the
witness that it is accused 1’s version that they lived near him during 2015/2016 but
that they lived with him for the two -week period during February or March 2017 and
that it was during this time that she had the relationship with Alex. This was not the
same version that was put to the witness on the previous day. The witness denied
that she ever saw Kenny during 2017 or stayed at accused 1’s house. It was
further put to the witness that she was encouraged and/or persuaded by the police
to lay charges against the accused even though she did not intend doing so. She
agreed with what was put to her and confirmed that it was only after the
investigating officer told her that she must think of other children and even her own
child before not agreeing to testifying.
[109] It was put to the witness that the police persuaded her to lay charges against
the accused specifically accused 1 because of the fact that he had laid charges
against another police officer’s brother. She denied this.
51
Mpayipeli (“Mpayieli”):
[110] Captain Mpayipeli testified that his in service of the SAPS stationed at the
Hawks in Springbok. He became aware of a docket of possible human trafficking in
April 2017. After perusal of the statement on [CJ], he noticed that the statement
was made by the complainant on 9 March 2017. He took it upon himself and started
with the investigation which led him to various other complainants. His investigation
also led him to the premises in Brooklyn which he went to observe. He was not
aware of a case that was investigated by the Cape Town Hawks . There was a
request for the docket to be transferred to Cape Town in May of 2018 . He testified
that there was an occasion when he went to the house of accused 1 and the ID of
[CJ] was handed over to him by a lady. He took the ID and gave it back to [CJ].
When the docket was taken over by the Hawks in Cape Town, he was no longer
part of the investigating team.
[MS]:
[111] [MS] testified that she knows both accused 1 and 2 but she does not know
accused 3. She state d that she met accused 1 at the house of accused 2. She
further placed on record that she got to know accused 2 when accused 2
befriended her.
[112] The reason she came to Cape Town was because accused 2 had
approached her and informed her that accused 1 had a prostitution business in
Cape Town. She was asked by accused 2 if she was interested and she said yes.
Thereafter she came to Cape Town with accused 1 and [SM]. She stated that this
52
was her first -time doing prostitution and her first time being exposed to the drugs
named rocks.
[113] She testified when she arrived in Cape Town at the house of accused 1,
[SM] explained to her how the prostitution was going to work. It was explained that
she must bring client’s back to the house of accused 1 to do business. After four
days she went out onto the road to get clients with [SM]. They would bring the client
back to the house and have sex with them. She testified that she charged R150,
R50 would be given to either M oola or Alex for use of the room and the other R100
would go towards purchasing rocks. She confirmed that both her and [SM] did the
prostitution work.
[114] Before she started with prostitution on the road, she was given two pieces of
“rock” for free for her to get energy to go out and work. Afterwards when she was
done with a client she usually came back to the house and then she would receive
another piece of rock. She told the court that rocks leave your system quickly and
that you would require more rocks for you to have energy to go out and do
prostitution for the night.
[115] The money they made from the prostitution was given to the person who
gave them the rocks. The money no longer belonged to them. She told the court
that sometimes accused 2 would phone accused 1 and that she would then greet
accused 2 over the phone.
[116] One evening two guys approached her and [SM] for business. When they
got to the house of t hese guys, they informed them that they are looking for girls to
53
work for them. They told these guys that they are not interested. As they left the
house of the guys accused 1 drove past. He reversed and told them to get into the
vehicle. Once they got home accused 1 did not believe them when they told him
they hadn’t known that these guys wanted to recruit them. Accused 1 then started
to assault them.
[117] She indicated that accused 1 assaulted [SM] with a cable wire over her body
and that she obtained ugly marks on her back, stomach, and thighs because of the
assault. She told the court that he made her sit on her knees for a very long period
and threw cold water over her. He also hit her on the tips of her fingers.
[118] She explained that sometimes [SM] would be unhappy and complain. She
would go to accused 1 telling him she wants to go home. Accused 1 would then tell
her that she must wait as there was no money for taxi fare. She testified that once
[SM] ran away to Kenilworth.
[119] She confirmed that during the time that she was at accused 1 ’s house, [CJ]
would visit her as she was living with a person by the name of Kenny. She stated
that at the time [CJ] visited, [SM] had already run away from the house of accused
1.
[120] She also told the court that before coming to Cape Town her personal
circumstances were not good, that work was scarce and that she was using drugs
tik and mandrax. Her relationship with her mother was also not good. She testified
that there was a time when she was living at the house of accused 2.
54
[121] She identified the premises and the room she stayed in with [SM]. She
indicated that this room’s door had to be opened with a spoon. She further also
identified the spots she stood at when doing business on accused 1’s instructions.
[122] It was further put to the witness that she assisted clients during 2015 at
accused 1 house with internet dating. She would deal with the Afrikaans speaking
clients and that money would be deposited at Shoprite for their services. The
witness confirmed this.
[123] It was put to the witness that accused 1 denies that she would bring men
home and have sex with them for money at his house. She confirmed that it indeed
happened and at the end of the night when accused 1 came home the money that
was made would be given to him.
[124] It was put to the witness that accused 1 denies that drugs were ever sold at
the premises. The witness stated that this did happen.
[125] During cross examination the witness confirmed that [SM] was at accused
1’s house during 2015 and she stated that she knew [CJ] visited at the house, she
is not aware if she ever worked for accused 1.
[126] She testified that she does not know of an occasion where she was in a
vehicle of accused 1 with [CJ] in Springbok nor does she know of Ms [MA] being at
the house of accused 1.
[127] It was put to the witness that accused 2 met her through accused 1. The
witness stated that this cannot be true because she lives in Springbok and accused
55
1 lived in Cape Town. It was further put to the witness that accused 2 denies ever
asking her to go to Cape Town to work. The witness state d that accused 2 together
with accused 1 had asked her to come to Cape Town to do prostitution work.
[128] The witness confirmed that accused 1 had told them they would no longer be
able to smoke tik and that they should rather smoke “rocks”. It was put to the
witness that accused 2 denies that she ever stayed at the house of accused 2. The
witness confirmed that she did in fact stay at the house of accused 2.
[SM]:
[129] [SM] testified that she is from Matjieskloof , Springbok and that she kn ew
accused 1 through accused 2 after accused 2 had taken her for a holiday in Cape
Town during a December holiday. She stated that she does not know accused 3.
[130] She testified that she and accused 2 became good friends when accused 2
was living in Matjieskloof and that she may have been between the ages of 16 and
17 years old at that time. She was unemployed and that her sister was taking care
of her. She told the court that her mother had passed away when she was 11 years
old. She testified that she used alcohol and later started smoking tik. Accused 2
knew her personal circumstances.
[131] When she came to Cape Town for the first time, she may have been
between 17 and 18 years old. She testified that they came for a good time, went out
a lot and that accused 2 showed her how to sell her body on the street.
56
[132] On the last night when they were supposed to leave, accused 2 did not want
to pay for her taxi fare back to Springbok. She further stated that accused 1 hit her
with a broom that evening because she did not want to do prostitution for him. She
then ran away and managed to get hold of her sister who paid for her taxi back to
Springbok.
[133] She stated that when she returned to Matjieskloof she was angry at accused
2 at first but later they became friends again. She testified that there was another
occasion accused 1 came to Springbok to visit accused 2. On this occasion
accused 1 and 2 had asked her and the witness named [MS] to go and do
prostitution in Cape Town for accused 1. She and Monique agreed to do so as at
that stage she knew how the prostitution worked.
[134] [MS] and her left Matjieskloof with a taxi and accused 1 travelled with them.
She stated that she was promised that she could smoke tik and drink alcohol when
she got to Cape Town but that once she arrived at the house of accused 1, he only
wanted her to smoke “rocks”. She testified that once you smoked rocks you would
be willing to go out and sell your body for R50.
[135] She was told to go out and do prostitution every night and the money that
she made she had to hand over to accused 1 and in return she would get a “rock”.
She never had money for herself as she had to give all the money she earned to
accused 1. She stated that accused 1 would drop her off at the spot where they
were supposed to stand. She testified that if she brought in little money then
accused 1 would be rude and he would also assault her with either a belt or a
57
wooden spoon all over her body. On occasion he would also throw her with water
and then assaulted her with a basket or pushed her head into the water.
[136] She testified that before she went out on the street she would receive a
piece of “rock” as a “wake up”. Thereafter she would receive a piece of “rock” every
time she brought accused 1 money. She testified that sometimes she would run
away from accused 1’s house, but he would always find her and bring her back to
the premises and assault her. One night he assaulted her and because she had
enough, she decided to run away to Kenilworth. She testified that one night
accused 2 phoned her and informed her that she is in Cape Town and that her
family is looking for her. Accused 2 told her that she and accused 1 would come
pick her up and that she would pay for her taxi fare back to Matjieskloof. She was
then picked up and returned to Matjieskloof with accused 2 and her children.
[137] She testified that the third time she came back to Cape Town with accused 2
they stayed in Bellville. Accused 2 had sold her to someone in Bellville for taxi fare
home and left her there. While she was out on the street accused 1 found her again
and took her back to the premises where he made her sit on her knees for three to
five hours. Afterwards he asked her to work for him again, she agreed. Whil st
working for him she ran away.
[138] It was put to the witness that the first time accused 1 met her might have
been between 2015 and 2016 when she came to his house in Brooklyn with
accused 2. This was the morning after he had found accused 2 inebriated on the
streets in Bellville and had call the police to assist him. He stated that he and
58
accused 2 had an argument and then accused 2 and the witness left. The witness
denied the version put to her.
[139] It was put to her that the second time accused 1 saw her was in Bellville
during 2016 at a complex. She was with a person named Emmanuel who was
dealing in drugs and working with prostitutes and who is alleged to have been her
boyfriend. The witness denied this and stated she does not know a person called
Emmanuel.
[140] It was put to her that the third time accused 1 saw her was in Springbok, and
they just greeted each other. It was put to her that the last time he saw her was at
the same complex in Bellville towards the end of 2016 and she was pregnant. The
witness denied this and state d that the time she was pregnant was the period that
accused 1 came to accused 2’s house in Springbok with [MS] in his blue vehicle.
[141] It was put to the witness that she was never inside the house of accused 1.
The witness stated that the statement is untrue. During cross examination it came
to light that prior to the witness c oming to Cape Town for consultation with the
prosecutor she had been asked by accused 2 to say nothing regarding the
allegations and that the witness must think about the children of accused 2.
[142] It was put to the witness that the reason why she knows about the bedroom
door which needed a utensil to open was because she probably spoke to [CJ]. The
witness denied this and testified that the reason she knows about the door was
because she was inside the house.
59
[143] It was put to the witness that she and accused 2 had been good friends.
Further that before she came down to Cape Town with accused 2, she and accused
2 had gone to the club in Springbok to sell their bodies for money. The witness
states that she can’t really recall but that that they did go to the club to have fun.
She added that it may have been so.
[144] It was put to the witness that the reason she and accused 2 came to Cape
Town that December was to come and do prostitution to make some money. They
went to Bellville to do prostitution work there. The witness responded that it was the
second time when she came to Cape Town that she and accused 2 had decided to
come and do prostitution. This did not happen on the first occasion.
[145] She stated that the first time she came to Cape Town they came with the
children of accused 2. They went to a house in Brooklyn where they smoked
“rocks”. Accused 1 came to fetch them there and accused 2 had to begged him not
to beat her. Accused 1 took them home and he assaulted accused 2.
[146] The second time they came to Cape Town they went to Bellville and they
stayed with a Nigerian lady and had to pay R50 if they wanted to use a room for
prostitution. It was put to the witness that one evening accused 1 found accused 2
on the street where she was very drunk, and he called the police. She was forced to
leave with accused 1. The next morning, she arranged to meet the witness at the
seven eleven and then they went to accused 1’s house. According to accused 2 this
was then the first time that the witness had been at the house of accused 1.
According to accused 2 she and accused 1 had an argument and he wanted to hit
accused 2 with the broom, the witness intervened and accused 1 ended up injuring
60
the witness in the process. The witness states that she can’t remember such an
incident.
[147] It was put to the witness that after this incident accused 2 and the witness
left and went to a person by the name of Omar who lived in Brooklyn. The witness
responded that she knows she was there the first occasion she came to Cape Town
with accused 2 because they only stayed in Brooklyn. They never went there on the
second occasion.
[148] It was further put to the witness that accused 1 had given accused 2 taxi fare
money to return to Springbok. It came to light during the cross examination that
accused 2 had taken the witness to a man in Parksig and had left her there. She
had sold her to this man for her to get taxi fare back to Springbok. The witness
testified she does not remember that accused 1 gave accused 2 money for taxi
fare.
[149] It was put to the witness that after the broom incident she didn’t want to go
home to Springbok but wanted to stay at Omar place. The witness stated that she
does not remember such an incident. The only time she stayed at Omar’s house
was the time she ran away from the house of accused 1 and that this was after he
chased her with the broom, during the first time she came to Cape Town with
accused 2.
[150] In relation to questions about [MS] the witness testified that she came to the
house of accused 2 and had in fact slept over one weekend.
61
[151] The witness once again reiterated that the first time she came to Cape Town
with accused 2, they were mostly in Brooklyn. After accused 1 had chased her with
the broom she ran away to Omar’s house where she also worked. At some stage
she got in contact with her sister who then arranged taxi fare for her to come home
to Springbok. She did not return with accused 2.
[152] It was put to the witness that accused 2 will testify that the witness only came
with her on one occasion to Cape Town when they stayed in Bellville with the
Nigerian lady.
[MA]:
[153] [MA] testified that she had known accused 2 since the time she moved to
Matjieskloof, Springbok. She also stated that she kn ew accused 1 as the husband
of accused 2. She testified that she and the brother of accused 2 were friends and
that is how she got to know accused 2.
[154] She stated that accused 2 had asked her during 2016 if she was interested
in going to Cape Town to fetch drugs from accused 1 and that she would pay her
R2000 to do so. Initially she said no as her boyfriend was very jealous and he
would not allow her to go. When accused 2 asked her a second time she also said
no. This request was made in the presence of her boyfriend Bertram (Booise), and
he also felt that the witness should not do it.
[155] As time went by the witness explained that things were not going well in her
life. She was using drugs excessively, neither she nor the boyfriend were working,
62
and they had little to no food. That is when she and Booise discussed it and agreed
that she would take accused 2 up on her offer to fetch the drugs in Cape Town and
get paid R2000.
[156] She testified that she went to accused 2 and asked if the offer still stood to
which accused 2 replied yes. Accused 2 told accused 1 that a lady is coming. They
waited for accused 1 to deposit money to Shoprite for taxi fare for the witness and
when he did, a taxi was booked for her. The witness left Sunday afternoon from
Springbok to Cape Town. Accused 2 had informed her that she must just collect the
package and that she would be returning the next day.
[157] She arrived at the house of accused 1 after 10 pm the Sunday evening.
When she got there accused 1 was not at home yet. When he eventually arrived,
she told him that she was told by accused 2 to collect a package from him. She
testified that at that stage accused 1 did not want to talk about the package. She
went to the bathroom and when she came out, she saw a girl by the name of [MS]
who was also from Springbok. She asked [MS] what she was doing there, and [MS]
also wanted to know what she was doing at the house of accused 1.
[158] She informed [MS] that she came to collect drugs for accused 2 and take it
back to Springbok and [MS] then informed her that she was in fact there to help her
with the prostitution work. She further stated that accused 1 had informed accused
2 that he needed another girl to assist her with the prostitution work and this is the
reason the witness was sent.
63
[159] She testified that she then tried to ascertain from accused 1 what she was
meant to be doing here in Cape Town but that he did not want to talk about it. She
testified that later [MS] came back with a man, and they went into the bedroom.
After a while [MS] came out with a R50 and gave it to accused 1 who then gave
[MS] a piece of rock. The witness also purchased a piece of rock from accused 1.
She further informed the court that accused 1 told her he does business in one of
the rooms and that she had assumed he meant prostitution.
[160] She testified that the next morning at about 5am she once again had a
conversation with [MS] who again confirmed that accused 1 needed another girl to
do prostitution work for him. Apparently, according to [MS], this witness was not one
of girls whose photos accused 2 had sent.
[161] She testified that after [MS] fell asleep, she took her cell phone and
contacted Booise to assist her. She told him that she had discovered that accused
2 had actually sent her to come and do prostitution work. She asked him to contact
her mother.
[162] She was contacted by Victoria and informed that they had booked her a taxi
to come back to Springbok. At a later stage accused 2 also phoned her about the
story she was telling people and asked whether she couldn’t stay till the end of the
week to help out because who was going to pay for her taxi fare now. She then
informed accused 2 that her mother will pay her taxi fare.
[163] The taxi collected her from accused 1 ’s house and took her back to
Springbok the Tuesday. She informed the court that prior to this incident, she
64
abused drugs, was unemployed and did not have a good relationship with her
family. She indicated that accused 2 knew this information. She further confirmed
that she never at any staged looked after the children of accused 2.
[164] It was put to the witness that the reason she came to Cape Town during
2016 to accused 1 ’s house was to look after the children of accused 1 and 2 and
not to collect drugs. The witness denied this by responding that as a drug user how
could she be trusted to look after children. Furthermore, the children were living in
Springbok, why would she need to go to Cape Town to look after them.
[165] It was put to the witness that accused 2 wanted to send the children to Cape
Town for a period of two weeks as she needed a break. The witness denied this
version of events and enquired why the children weren’t sent with her the Sunday
night.
[166] It was further put to the witness that the reason she went down to Cape
Town that Sunday was to have a look at the place, meet accused 1 and satisfy
herself that she was comfortable with the place before she committed herself. The
witness denied this.
[167] It was put to the witness that the first thing she wanted to know when she
arrived at the house of accused 1 was whether there was a place close by which
sold tik. The witness admitted that because she was a drug user, she enquired this
but that it was not the first thing she asked.
65
[168] It was put to her that a ccused 1 found out about her request for drugs and
realised she was not suitable to look after the children and decided to send her
back. The witness responded by stating that she was never suitable to look after
the children. Accused 1 booked her a taxi. The witness denied this and stated that
the witness Victoria booked the taxi. It was further put to the witness that she left
the early hours of Monday morning. The witness denied this and stated she left the
Tuesday.
[169] The witness was asked whether she was not afraid that she would be
arrested and sent to jail if she was caught with the drugs which accused 2 allegedly
sent her to go fetch. The witness replied yes which is why she initially said no, but
because she was desperate at the time she agreed to go.
[170] During cross-examination it came to light that accused 2 had told the witness
that accused 1 only sells rocks.
[171] It was put to the witness that the agreement between her and accused 2 was
that she must look after the two middle children of accused 2. The witness
responded by saying she would have said no if she had been asked this.
[172] It was further put to her that accused 2 wanted a break from the children and
that is why she was sending them to Cape Town. The witness had never been to
the place of accused 1 and she first wanted to ascertain how the set up was. This is
the reason she went to the house of accused 1. The witness denied this.
66
[173] It was put to the witness that the same evening she arrived at accused 1
house, accused 2 had phoned her and asked her how everything is and that the
witness had responded that everything is fine. The witness denied that this
conversation ever took place. It was also put to the witness that accused 2 was very
surprised to see that the witness had returned the next day.
[SD]:
[174] [SD] also referred to as Z[…]) testified regarding counts 34 to 39. She
confirmed that she stays in Port Elizabeth, had completed standard 3 at school,
could not read and write English, but could speak it. At the time of the hearing , she
was working in Port Elizabeth at an hotel for approximately a year.
[175] She confirmed that she knew all three of the accused.
[176] She described to the court that she met accused 1 in an area called Central
Port Elizabeth where she was staying with a Nigerian guy. She went outside to find
drugs and was approached by two guys in a grey Polo vehicle. The driver was
accused 1. She went outside so she could find a customer to get money to smoke
drugs. She confirmed that she sold her body to get money to buy drugs. She
further confirmed that she smokes “rocks” and that that was her drug of choice.
[177] The driver of the vehicle, accused 1, asked her whether she knows of a
place where he could buy a pipe and “gosh”. That, according to the witness , is “a
soft gold steel wool” which is used inside a pipe and which you need to smoke.
67
Accused 1 and his friend was looking for rocks. They asked her to get inside the
car and when she was inside the car accused 1 told her that he had booked an
hotel in East Central.
[178] The three of them went to the hotel and once inside, accused 1 told her that
he lived in Cape Town and that he wanted her to come to Cape Town with them.
He promised her he would treat her well and he would do everything for her. She
testified that she was desperate at the time and had also never been to Cape Town.
While she could recall that the driver was accused 1 she could not recall the name
of the other guy. According to her testimony accused 1 cut her six pieces of rock
whilst they were at the hotel which she smoked there. Thereafter, and because he
said he would treat her well she agreed to go with accused 1 to Cape Town.
[179] Accused 1’s friend asked her if she doesn’t have a friend , but her friend had
already left with a client. After they left the hotel, she told them that they could look
for girls outside. She saw a coloured girl on the street and approached her on the
request of accused 1’s friend to join them in the car. She didn’t tell the coloured
lady, whose name she cannot recall, that they were going to Cape Town. She then
told the coloured lady that they were going to the hotel to “do business” (business
according to the witness is when you sell your body for money). The coloured girl
agreed to go to the hotel and got inside the car.
[180] Whilst in the car, accused 1’s friend provided the coloured girl with tik, her
drug of choice. and the witness testified that they drove towards Cape Town. They
were smoking in the care, drinking whiskey, listening to music and eating KFC.
Accused 1 cut two more pieces of rock for her whilst they were driving, which she
68
smoked in the car. The coloured girl did not know that they were going to Cape
Town. The witness however knew that they were going to Cape Town and that they
would be working for accused 1. According to her the work required of her was to
get clients, give the money she made to accused 1 and he will buy her drugs on the
basis that he would treat her well and look after her. She perceived accused 1 to
be very nice as he spoke to her very gently and very nicely. She did not tell a
single soul that she was going to Cape Town and took no clothes with her. S he
stated that they were very high and further that the coloured lady was not happy at
all. She was crying and the witness told her that everything will be ok.
[181] In the car towards Cape Town accused 1 was very nice to her and even
allowed her to sleep against his legs. When she woke, they were in Cape Town
and they stayed in accused 1’s house. The witness was shown photographs of the
premises and confirmed that it was accused 1’s home where she had stayed. She
testified that initially when she arrived at the house, she was scared that they were
going to be killed as there were lots of “males in the house”. The coloured lady was
still crying and was not happy . She did not know that they were taking her to Cape
Town. The coloured girl was called by a friend of accused 1 and she left with him.
Accused 1 took her into one of the bedrooms and she met another coloured lady
who was busy smoking in the room.
[182] The witness identified this coloured lady as [SM]. According to the witness
accused 1 told her that the coloured girl would be her roommate. He went to go
fetch something for her to smoke and after that the witness and the coloured girl
basically did everything together. They would bath together, sleep together and go
69
out to work on the streets together. The routine would be that they would wash,
then be given rocks which she calls “wake up” , and then they would go out on the
street to get customers.
[183] From her evidence she was completely addicted to rocks . She showed an
intense liking for smoking rocks. She explained that this drug gave you a lot of
energy, made your body strong and enabled you to do “business the whole night”.
She was only allowed to leave the house once she had a cellphone provided to her
by accused 1. During the first two days of doing business she had no customers but
on the third day she made a lot of money. Accused 1 was very proud of her
performance and called her “a machine”. The witness became extremely emotional
when she testified about the name given to her by accused 1 and why she was
given this name. According to her accused 1 at that stage still treated her well and
called her his daughter and she called him “father” or “daddy”.
[184] She testified that a ccused 1 explained to her what to charge for her work :
R100 for a blow job and R200 for a blow job and sex . If a customer wanted to stay
longer, they ha d to pay more than the standard R200. She listened to him and
obeyed him because she didn’t want to disappoint him as he looked after her.
[185] Accused 1 told her to put on the clothes of [SM] whom she found there, and
she agreed to do so. She continued doing business and got many clients. She
would give accused 1 the money she earned, and he would give her something to
smoke. According to her the drugs made her lose her appetite and accused 1 was
not happy about this which caused them to start fighting. He was worried that she
was getting too thin and encouraged her to eat. He pushed her to earn more and
70
more money. When she asked him to buy clothes . he would not buy her the
clothes she wanted, but would rather convince her to buy something less
expensive. She was extremely unhappy that she was making so much money for
him but could not buy nice clothes with the money she had made. Even though she
was unhappy she could not talk or complain too much as he would motion towards
her that she would get a smack.
[186] She confirmed that the person s staying in the house whilst she was there
were accused 1 and 3, the coloured girl called [SM] and a nother person whose
name she could not remember. Apparently, there were also two other ladies, the
girlfriend of accused 1 and the girlfriend of a fifth person in the house whom she
could not remember. They did not work for accused 1. In her view the other girls
were being kept from the money she earned as they were provided with toiletries,
food, clothes and everything else they desired. She was not happy about the
situation at all.
[187] She also complained that accused 1 would play her and [SM] off against
each other by comparing them to each other based on how much money they ha d
earned. She didn’t like the competition he created between them.
[188] Accused 1 would tell the witness to go out and work even if she didn’t feel
well or if it was cold and windy outside. This is according to her when she first saw
his cruelty and true colours. She fell ill and begged accused 1 to stay at home but
he still forced her to work. She finally became so thin and exhausted that she was
taken to a clinic as he did not want to take her to hospital. Accused 1 didn’t even
want her to drive to a clinic and told her to walk there. The witness was visibly
71
upset when explaining her situation. She was diagnosed with TB and as being HIV
positive and provided with medication. According to her accused 1 had no
sympathy for her situation and had no heart. She simply had to fatten up and start
working again. As soon as she had picked up sufficient weight she had to work for
accused 1 again.
[189] After a night out with a client she took him to the taxi station and was
involved in a motor vehicle accident. She was taken to hospital. At the time of the
accident, she described herself as being “sober like a judge”. According to her the
accused told her not to tell anyone where she comes from and had instructed her to
lie to the staff at the hospital. The ambulance took her to Somerset Hospital where
she stayed for a period. She could not explain for how long. According to the
witness, Alex, the brother of accused 1 and his girlfriend came to the hospital to
visit her with gifts from accused 1 and accused 1 also later came to visit her with
gifts. He insisted that she make up a story and that she does not tell the lawyer or
the doctor about what she was doing.
[190] She was repeatedly told not to say anything. Accused 3 also visited her at
the hospital and told her not to say anything to anyone about what she was doing.
After she was discharged from hospital, she was taken back to the home of
accused 1. [SM] looked after her mostly while she was recovering and she heard a
story that [SM] did not come back one morning after sleeping over with a client.
Accused 1 could also not get hold of her on her cell phone and she was nowhere to
be found. Accused 1 was extremely angry as no one was making money for him.
72
[191] When accused 1 found [SM] he brutally assaulted her. She saw and heard
accused 1 slapping the girl, hitting her with his fists, hitting her with a broom until it
broke, hitting her with the buckle of his belt and further forcing her to put boiling
water on her head in a bucket whilst holding two glasses in her hands. The witness
became extremely upset and shouted to accused 1 that she hates him for what he
did to that girl. Accused 3 and Alex was present during the assault. Accused 1
also hit the coloured girl with a white electric wire. The girl was told to stay inside
according to her for one or two months and later begged her to talk to accused 1 as
she wanted to go outside. She did so and the coloured girl was allowed to go
outside and work on the basis that if she did not come home again, he would
assault her again.
[192] The girl went out and never came back again. According to the witness
accused 1 could not find her and said that if he finds her, he would kill her.
[193] Accused 1 told the witness that he was going away to look for girls, that she
must not tell anyone and that she had to look after the house. She then became a
drug dealer in the premises. The witness explained that Alex would cut the rocks
for her and she would sell the cut pieces to customers.
[194] Accused 1 returned and advised her that he had found two girls whom he
would be bringing to the premises. He arrived at the house with a very young
Xhosa girl, still a child according to the witness, and a white girl who was introduced
to her as Roxy. Both girls stayed with her in her room and she had to teach the
Xhosa girl to smoke rocks rather than tik which she did. She shared her clothes
and everything else with them as she did with the coloured girl that previously lived
73
in the house. According to her accused 1 explained the same story to the girls as
he had to her that they must make lots of money. He warned the Xhosa girl not to
speak to Nigerians or Cameroons as she was beautiful and sexy and they would try
to take her from him. Accused 1 explained the rules to them, for example that they
can’t go outside without a phone. Both these girls worked for accused 1. Accused
1 would always give them a “wake up” rock before they went out. Roxy was also
injecting drugs and placed her own safety at risk.
[195] The Xhosa girl also ran away one night and accused 1 found her staying with
another Nigerian. Accused 1 assaulted the Xhosa girl in the same way he
assaulted the coloured girl. This time she did intervene and shouted at accused 1
to stop. He told her to shu t up or he would break her other leg. She kept quiet and
he continued beating the Xhosa girl. When the Xhosa girl was finally allowed
outside again, she ran away never to be seen again.
[196] The witness was contacted by the lawyers for her claim against the Road
Accident Fund and she then told the lawyer he r full story. This time she told the
truth about her situation and that she was working for accused 1.
[197] Roxy was also involved in a car accident and had a broken leg. It was in
white cement from her hip to her foot.
[198] One night she went out to a client’s house and as she was having a good
time there, she did not go home. The next mor ning, she realised that she would be
in trouble and was scared that she would get beaten like the other girls that she had
seen. She went to a drug dealer, Monday’s, house and he agreed that she could
74
stay there. She agreed to sell drugs for Monday. Accused 1 found out that she
was working for Monday and arrived at his house. As he was threatening to hurt
Monday, she intervened and agreed to go home with him. Accused 1 started
shouting and calling her names from the moment they got into the car. On their
arrival at home, she received a beating similar to that of the other girls. He slapped
her, hit her with his fists, hit her with an electric wire, hit her with the buckle of his
belt, hit her with a broom and had her balance boiling water on her head. After the
assault she stayed in the house for about two days and thereafter she had to start
working again. She testified that she still ha d the bruises on her body and even
offered to show them to the court. She did not receive any medical attention but
was given rocks to smoke as it takes the pain of your body away according to her.
After the beating and on the first occasion that she was allowed out, she ran away
to Monday’s house where she remained selling drugs for him. Accused 1 was then
arrested.
[199] After the arrest of accused 1, accused 3 and Alex was still looking for her in
the blue car of accused 1.
[200] She was contacted by Pamplin, whilst she was living with Monday, who
wanted her to make a statement. She agreed to go with him and did so. Everything
she told him he wrote down and it took days to complete the statement. She then
decided that she didn’t want to go back to Monday and Pamplin called a shelter for
her where she stayed and was attended to by social workers. She was looked after
well with the assistance of Pamplin and thereafter the police took her home to P ort
Elisabet where she stayed at home with her sister and aunt.
75
[201] Whilst in P ort Elisabeth accused 1 telephoned her and told her that if the
police questioned her, she should not tell them anything and should tell them that
she was looking after his daughter and his son. She lied to him and told him he
need not worry , she would do so. He also asked her who she was working for in
Port Elisabeth and she told him that she was not working for anyone and will never
go back again. She was also called by accused 3 who begged her to come back
but she refused.
[202] She received various messages from accused 3 but no longer had them.
According to the witness accused 1 also told her she must lie about Pamplin and
say that Pamplin told her to say the things she testified about in court and that
Pamplin forced her to make the statement. She confirmed very robustly that it was
not Pamplin who made her say things; it was she who wanted to tell the truth. She
looked at accused 1 and said that here she is telling the truth.
[203] She identified a girl [SN] as the Xhosa girl who came to the house with Roxy
and being the one that accused 1 assaulted. She identified [SM] as the coloured girl
she stayed and worked with when she was brought to Cape Town.
[204] She also confirmed that she knew a girl named [UL] as being a girl who was
staying at accused 1’s house. She was not doing business according to the
witness and was sleeping with accused 1.
[205] She confirmed that accused 1 never gave her any of the money that she
earned by selling her body. He took everything.
76
[206] She confirmed that she knew accused 2 as she is a ccused 1’s wife and she
saw accused 2 on two occasions at his home. Once she came alone and once she
brought her children with whom she played. She confirmed that accused 3 was
staying at accused 1’s house and helping him with the business and that he was
also selling drugs and would regularly come home with very young girls. She
recalled a specific young coloured girl with whom he slept and whom he tried to
teach to smoke drugs. According to the witness accused 1 and 3 was telephoned
by a sister who had a client who was smoking and wanted a girl. The girl was taken
to the client and when she came back she reported that she didn’t like it.
[ND]:
[207] [ND] (also referred to as “Roxy”) testified that she obtained grade 6 at school
and was born and bred in East London. She is currently self -employed and works
as a motor mechanic. She is in the process of getting divorced and has three
children, aged 13, 11 years, and 4 months. She confirmed that she knows accused
1 by the name of Eddie and accused 3 as Yannick. She had seen Yannick once at
the house of accused 1. [ND] confirmed that she was working as a sex worker in
East London when she met accused 1. She explained that one evening whilst she
was working, a black car approached her and accused 1 was in the car. He asked
her to get in and they went to the beachfront where he asked her to come work for
77
him in Cape Town as a sex worker. She was not certain but recalled that that a
person called Moola was with accused 1.
[208] She testified that she had never been to Cape Town before and was a bit
“sceptic”, but he explained to her that it was so much nicer in Cape Town and that
she will make so much more money there. He dropped her off and picked her up
again the next day and took her to the place where [SN] was, it being a bed and
breakfast in East London. According to [ND] accused 1 told [SN] to get ready
because they were getting on a bus to go to Cape Town. They booked two bus
tickets at the Windmill for herself and [SN] whereafter they went to Oxford Street
where accused 1 bought heroine for her to take on the bus. She went with him to
buy the heroine. She needed the heroine as she was using at the time.
[209] Accused 1 gave her the heroine to use and he sat two seats behind them.
She had no clothing and he bought her an outfit at Pep Stores. [SN] had luggage.
They were picked up by Yannick, accused 3 who met them at the station whereafter
they, by way of taxi, went to accused 1’s house in Koeberg Road known as P […]
G[…] Street. At the premises accused 1 gave them their first rocks to smoke.
According to her a person named Z […] was at the house. As [SN] had never
smoked rocks before, accused 1 asked Z[…] to train [SN] to smoke rocks.
[210] As accused 1 did not have her drug of choice, heroine and he had to go and
buy her heroine so she could work that evening. When he came back, he gave it to
her and she went out to work on the first evening. He explained to her where she
must stand every evening and he drove up and down the whole night. According to
her [SN] stayed at the premises. She confirmed that every time she made money,
78
she had to give everything to accused 1. The procedure was that when she was
finished with a client, she handed the money to accused 1 and she would receive a
piece of rocks and a bag of heroine in exchange. Accused 1 told her to charge
R300 for a so-called “full house” (both sex and blow job) and R200 for either a blow
job or sex. She explained their work schedule as being: they would start getting
ready between 5 and 6 in the evening. He would give them a “wake -up” (a piece of
rock and to her a bag of heroine). They would use it whereafter they would go to
work. After every customer she would receive another bag of heroine and a piece
of rock. They were not allowed to go out during the day and if they didn’t make
money accused 1’s attitude would change towards them in the sense that he would
become rude. He always wanted them to make money.
[211] During May 2017 she was knocked over by a vehicle. According to her it
was the same make of vehicle that knocked over Z […], a Polo. She was taken by
the ambulance to Somerset Hospital and had a plaster on her right leg. She was
aggrieved that accused 1 didn’t visit her once while she was in hospital. She
contacted her father who stayed in East London and as a result of withdrawal
symptoms from the heroine she booked herself out of the hospital after two to three
days.
[212] Accused 1 and Alex fetched her and took her home. Accused 1 did not want
to give her “stuff” and told her to contact her father to send money. He father sent
R100, of which Alex took R50 for petrol and gave her R50 for a bag of heroine.
Accused 1 told her to ask her father for a R1000 in order for him to take care of her
79
as she was not working. He father did not agree and she then asked him to send a
bus ticket so she could go back to East London.
[213] She testified that they could not get out of the room as it only opened from
the outside. She was kept at accused 1’s house against her will. Her father sent
her a bus ticket but accused 1 did not allow her to catch the bus. She told on e of
accused 1’s customers who attends at the house to smoke rocks to go to Maitland
Police to tell them what was going on , but nothing happened. She contacted her
father again who contacted the Hawks to get her out of the house. She did not
know whether they would come or when they would come. She was in the room
when they arrived and she was taken to a safe house. A girl called [UL] was with
her in the room and she was also taken to a safe house.
[214] [UL] came to the house one night with Z […]. [UL] stayed there but Z […]
disappeared. [UL] was staying with accused 1 in his room for a few days and they
were having sexual relations. She did not do prostitution work.
[215] According to [ND] the reason accused 1 kept [UL] there was because he
thought she knew where Z […] was, even though she did not. Her recollection was
that [UL] was there for about a week.
[216] [SN] ran away to another dealer but came back the following day. Accused 1
made her stand on her knees with a cup similar to a coffe e cup with water on her
head. He beat her with a kettle cord across the back. A day or two after the assault
[SN] ran away again.
80
[217] Accused 3 sold drugs on behalf of accused 1 to them. She confirmed that if
she did not get heroine, she would have terrible withdrawal symptoms which
included pain, stomach aches, a runny tummy and hot sweats. Accused 1 was fully
aware of the fact that she got sick if she did not receive drugs. She had to work,
sell her body, for her to receive heroine and drugs. A bag of heroine cost R 50.00
and she would inject the heroine. She confirmed that even if she gave accused 1
R200 to R300 for the services that she had rendered, she would still only receive
one rock and one bag of heroine. She worked with a phone that was given to her by
accused 1. He would often check the phone to make sure that she did not have
other dealers’ numbers on the phone.
[218] She used the clothes in the wardrobe that she assumed were Z […]’s clothes
and accused 1 would buy basic toiletries and female products for them. With
reference to the exhibits , she confirmed that she was indeed in accused 1’s house
and in the room as depicted therein. The period she stayed at accused 1’s house
was a period of less than a year. At some point she shared with Z […] and [SN] and
this is the same room where they would do their business. Accused 1’s friends
would also come over on occasion to buy rocks and then they would spend the
night with them. These customers were called smoke customers. She knew no
one else in Cape Town.
[219] She testified that she would have liked money for herself but that it was not
allowed. She did tell accused 1 occasionally but he didn’t care and he simply told
her to “f” off. She confirmed that her and [SN] wanted to run away to East London
but it never happened, even though [SN] did manage to get away from accused 1.
81
She asked him if she could go to East London and he said no. She further testified
that she did not run away because he told her that he had people watching her.
They were also not allowed to speak to police officers. They were not allowed any
choice in clients they saw. She confirmed that she didn’t have a life whilst living
with accused 1. She further confirmed that accused 1 was aggressive towards her
at times. He for example threw a mug at her but it didn’t hit her.
[220] During cross-examination it was put to her that accused 1 and 3 says that
she was Moola’s girlfriend and that accused 1 saw her for the first time when he
came back one night from a club in Cape Town and then again one night when she
arrived at their premises wet and with a cast and crutches.
[221] The witness was visibly agitated he aring accused 1’s denial of the
circumstances under which they met. She was amazed that he could make these
statements as she knew no-one in Cape Town and would not have known where to
go or to stay had he not brought her to Cape Town. She denied being Moola’s
girlfriend and the version of how they met as put on behalf of accused 1. She
denied only being at the premises for 10 days.
[222] It was also put to her that the case against accused 1 was because of an
officer with the name of Felix , who is the brother of the man called Zain, who is the
suspect in a carjacking case made by accused 1. She confirmed that she was
aware of accused 1’s car being stolen but that was all . When put to her that
accused 1 and 3 denies providing her with drugs she stated: “that’s how he kept me
there”.
82
[The father of ND]:
[223] He testified that his daughter, [ND], advised him that she wanted to go to
Cape Town with a white gentleman. He did not see this person. She contacted him
occasionally an d she told him she enjoyed it in Cape Town. During September
2017, she told him she wanted to come home and then later she phone d him again
from hospital and told him that she had broken her leg and that she desperately
wanted to come home. She released herself from hospital and went back to where
she was previously staying and phoned him again from someone else’s phone. She
said she urgently needed to come home, she could talk to h im on the phone
anymore and was held captive in a room with a locking device on the outside.
[224] She phoned him again and asked him to contact the police which he did by
going to the Fleet Street Police Station in East Londer where he spoke to Warrant
Officer Wood who directed him to the Hawks. He provided the court with the
handwritten note he made pertaining to the contacts he received and the people he
spoke to until his daughter was rescued on 12 September 2017 , which reads as
follows:
“MESSAGE FROM SAPS Case Registration on 2017/09/12. A t Maitland
Ref no Cas 115/9/2017 Contact Detail: 021 506 940014h39
W/O Wood: 043 7070732. Saw W/O at Fleet Street Police Station on
2017/9/04 for assistance and he referred me to Rudi Van Dyk at FCS Unit.
W/O Rudi Van Dyk: [cell number omitted]. Saw Rudi Van Dyk in connection
with [ND] and he referred me to HAWKS Capt Jack.
83
Capt Jack HAWKS: [cell number omitted]. Human Trafficking Unit and she
arranged with Colonel Chetty of HAWKS Cape Town and arrest was made
on 12/09/2017.“
[SN]:
[225] [SN] was 18 years old when she testified . She confirmed that her date of
birth is 14 October 2003. She left school in grade 8 and is not working. She knew
accused 1 and 3 but had never seen accused 2. She knows accused 1 as Eddie
and met him one evening outside a tavern called Bonhako in East London , where
he was with a friend called Omega. They greeted her and asked her if she wanted
to join them and drink with them. She said no she didn’t want to , and they left with
another girl that was there. Omega gave her their numbers as she said she was
leaving soon and that it was late at night. Omega phoned her the next day and she
told them that she can’t leave as she was already home. After she spoke to him on
the phone she went to the shop and on her way from the shop she met them at the
tavern together with a man called Moola. She was asked by accused 1 to help him
look for girls who can work for him in Cape Town. They drove around in a black
motor vehicle looking for girls in the residential area where she lived. They first
encountered a girl named Aneeka but she was not willing to work for accused 1 in
Cape Town. The next person they encountered was a girl called Roxy [ND] who
got into the car. When they were done talking, Roxy said she did not want to go
with them as she was already on duty on the corner. That night she stayed in a
guest house called Thule’s Guest House. During that night she was left with Moola
who tried to touch her, but she refused him.
84
[226] Accused 1 arrived at the Guest House on the third day she was there with
Roxy in a black vehicle, and it was said that they were going to book tickets and
that she was not going to go home as they were going to Cape Town. Accused 1
phoned accused 3 to arrange for money to buy tickets for the three of them to go to
Cape Town. On their arrival in Cape Town, they were collected at the bus station by
accused 3.
[227] On her arrival she found a girl named Z […] [SD] at the house. She was fed
and told to relax after the long trip as they had to go out to work that night. Accused
3 made the food. She had never smoked rocks before and was taught how to use it
by Z[…] on accused 1’s instructions.
[228] After they had finished smoking, they slept and was woken up to go and
work. Accused 1 first took Roxy and dropped her off on a corner. He then came
back to fetch her. Accused 1 told her that she must never talk to the police . She
was also told not to talk to the Nigerians because they were dangerous or to the
other girls on the streets. He drove a blue Peugeot.
[229] They were told by accused 1 that they were not allowed to come home with
less than R800 or R1000.
[230] The first time she tried to escape , she ran away to Monday’s brother’s
house. Accused 1 found her there and brought her back to his house. When
Monday and his brother arrived, they were told that if she wants to stay with them,
they must pay accused 1. Monday and his brother did not have money and they left
her with accused 1.
85
[231] Later the evening, accused 1 told her that he is going to punish her. He
slapped her with an open hand, let her get into a bath with water in and thereafter
assaulted her with an electric cord.
[232] The second time she ran away she ended up at a Bed and Breakfast where
she continued to do prostitution. Accused 1 eventually found her and took her back
to his house. Once they got to the house accused 1 told her that because she was
disobedient all the men in the house were going to sleep with her. He also wanted
to assault her but accused 3 and Z[…] intervened.
[233] The third time she ran away she managed to escape with the assistance of
her uncle who pretended to be a client. He booked her a bus ticket back to East
Londen and this is how she got away from accused 1.
[234] She testified when she initially arrived at the house of accused 1 with Roxy
and started working for accused 1, she was selling her body for money. She w ould
either take the clients to the house of accused 1 or go to different places which
were booked. She testified she was told by accused 1 how much to charge for her
services.
[235] After she received money from the clients, she would go back to accused 1’s
house and give him the money. He would then give her drugs. She never received
money for herself.
86
[236] Before they went out at night to do prostitution, they would be given a piece
of rock by accused 3 as a “ wake up”. Accused 3 would sell these drugs to them as
well.
[237] During the day they were not allowed to go outside. They had to use the time
to rest and sleep. She confirmed there was a door of a room which they were
sleeping in which could not open from the inside and that when they went out to see
clients, accused 1 would follow them by car.
[238] She explained that she ran away from accused 1 because he would hit her
and make her sit like a frog with a glass of water on her head.
[239] It was put to the witness that both accused 1 and 3 will testify that they don’t
know her and that they deny all the allegations made by her against them.
[240] It was also put to the witness she had never been inside the premises of
accused 1. The witness denied this and stated she had been there for 2 months
and that is why she was also able to identify the house on the photographs shown.
The time frame placed by her on when she was brought to Cape Town was around
May 2017.
[241] It was further put to the witness she was just given a statement to sign, and
the information contained therein did not come from her. The witness denied this
and stated what is contained in her statement is what she told the police.
87
[242] During re -examination she confirmed that she lived in the premises for a
period of about 2 months and that this is way she knew that accused 1 is married to
a coloured lady with children.
[243] She further stated that there was also a girl named Zinthle who slept over at
the house and that at the time she ran away Z[…]’s leg was broken.
[244] Based on [SN]’s date of birth, she must have been 14 years old when she
was living at the premises.
Pamplin:
[245] Warrant Officer Pamplin ( “Pamplin”) was the investigating officer in this
matter. The SAPS received information pertaining to a girl that was held against her
will and needed assistance at a house in Brooklyn on 12 September 2017. Based
on the information a team was put together to assist. They arrived at the house and
accused 1 was standing outside. He introduced himself to accused 1 and informed
him of the reason for their visit. Accused 1 took them into the house and there were
three other males sitting in the lounge area. De Leeuw proceeded to the back room
and found two ladies in the room. He called Carelse for assistance and [ND] was
brought out. The other officer, Durbaum, went in the room and brought out another
female now known as [UL] and informed him that she had reported that she was
raped.
[246] Accused 1 was arrested and transported to Maitland SAPS by Felix. He was
from the uniform unit at Maitland and assisted them at Pamplin’s request . He
88
remained on the scene and requested Carelse to take photos of the remaining
gentlemen. Later that day, at the Maitland Police station he processed accused 1.
At that stage he got the statements of [UL] and [ND]. His investigation led him to
other complainants.
[247] Z[…] was found at Monday’s house and at a later stage he went to East
London to obtain a statement form [SN]. He became aware there was a docket in
Springbok with similar allegations against accused 1 and 2 and the docket was
transferred to Cape Town. Based on the allegations by the complainants accused 2
and later accused 3 were arrested.
[248] In cross -examination it was put to Pamplin that the only reason why the
accused was arrested was because of the carjacking case which accused 1 had
made against the brother of Felix and the charges were fabricated. The witness
denied this.
Dealing in drugs (Count 40):
Jacobs:
[249] Colonel Jacobs (“Jacobs”) testified that he has been in the SAPS for 35
years and has been stationed as the Mispel Commander at Brackenfell Police
Station since May 2021. He was previously the Station Commander at Bothasig for
approximately ten years. During 2016 he was stationed at Bothasig.
[250] During 2016 he was involved in an undercover operation during about
October/November. He applied for authority to conduct an undercover operation in
89
respect of trafficking in drugs and later applied for an extension of such authority
which he received from the NPA in terms of a section 252 request. The authority to
conduct the undercover operation was not placed in dispute and the relevant
documents entered into the record as exhibits . He explained that they use d
informants and sources to link up with so called drug dealers. Captain Botes was
also part of this operation. As part of the undercover operation, they made use of
one Jennifer Smit (“Smit”) who Captain Botes searched for drugs or money prior to
her meeting the suspect to which the operation pertained . They also used a male
agent, who would drive Smit to the collection point after a thorough search.
[251] Smit was tasked with contacting accused 1 and she placed an order of 6 or 8
grams of cocaine and 2 grams of Cat. At that stage the tendency was to make use
of the so called “dial a pop ” modus operandi. This meant that you would contact
the number of a drug dealer and place an order. The buyer is then notified where
the pickup point would be by the dealer. During this operation it was known to the
SAPS that th e particular drug dealer only wanted to deal with woman hence the y
involved Smit. After it was ascertained where the identified pickup point would be ,
Captain Botes and Constable Jaftha was posted at McDonalds in Kleinbos Street,
in Kleinbos. This is opposite De Grendel Farm. Captain Botes informed him
telephonically that a blue Peugeot pulled up in the parking area whereafter she
advised him that the transaction had been done and he was requested to move in.
He arrived at the scene and identified himself as a police officer in SAPS and saw
the money between the two seats which was handed by Smit to the dealer for
payment of the drugs. He confirmed that prior to Smit placing the order he showed
her the R6000.00 cash and certified copies thereof . He confirmed that t he copies
90
corresponded with the numbers on the cash. Smit handed the drugs to him which
he then booked in. The people present at the scene was himself, Captain Botes,
Constable Jaftha and Warrant Officer Smit.
[252] In the car was a then unknown black male to him and an unknown -coloured
female. Smit identified accused 1 as the dealer. He took the money which was still
in the state in which it was when he handed it to Smit. The money was then put on
a table in a conference room in McDonalds and it was confirmed to be the same
money handed to Smit. According to Jacobs, Smit told him that the unknown
female, which was later identified as accused 2, had nothing to do with the sale of
the drugs to her.
[253] The drugs and accused 1’s cell phone were handed into SAP13. The
female, now known as accused 2, was crying the whole time and said she had
nothing to do with this incident and that she only got a lift from the person in the car
and that she is from Springbok. The operation took place between 19h00 and
23h00. Jacobs confirmed that numerous photographs were taken by Captain Botes
at the scene which photographs were admitted by agreement between the parties
into evidence as exhibit s. The photographs depicts where the money was found,
the drugs that w ere bagged and the location of the operation. It further confirmed
that it was accused 1 who was in the car with accused 2. Jacobs confirmed the
chain of evidence in that the drugs were put in a serial bag and booked into the
SAP13 register under serial number 991/2016. It was confirmed that accused 1
lived at 2 […] P[…] G[…] Street, Brooklyn. Colonel Jacobs confirmed that he was
provided with a cell phone number , which number was phoned by Smit to contact
91
the dealer, by members of the community who used the number to buy drugs. He
confirmed the cell phone number and that it was the number used by Smit. He
further confirmed that accused 1 was present when the copies of the cash were
compared with the cash itself. He confirmed that he is well known with these kinds
of operations and had conducted approximately 85 operations in that year alone.
The copies of the R 200 notes used in the operation was handed in by agreement
as an exhibit. The street value of the cocaine was about R1 200.00 a gram and the
value of Cat is approximately R300 to R500 a gram. This was so then and is still
more or less the same.
[254] The evidence of Jacobs was not disputed.
Botes:
[255] The state then called Captain Botes (“Botes”) who confirmed that she has 30
years’ service in SAPS and has been stationed at Bothasig Police Station since
2008. She was present at the incident on 20 October 2016 when accused 1 was
arrested for dealing in drugs.
[256] Botes confirmed that she was the handler of Smit, the female in the 252
operation and that she was the person responsible for the administration pertaining
to Smit. She confirmed that she searched Smit before the operation commenced
and that she had no drugs or money on her. She further confirmed that the money
given to Smit was checked against the certified copies and that it corresponded.
She confirmed the evidence of Jacobs in all regards and I therefor do not repeat her
evidence regarding her role in the operation.
92
[257] The evidence of Botes was not disputed.
Smit:
[258] Jennifer Smit (“Smit”) testified that she is employed by the City of Cape
Town as a Safety and Security Senior Inspector and has been so employed since
2014. Since July 2021 she has been a senior inspector. She confirmed that she
was part of the operation of Jacobs during October 2016 and that she was asked by
him to assist with an undercover operation.
[259] She explained her brief and confirmed the evidence of Botes regarding the
safety measures that was put in place pertaining to the operation’s execution. She
confirmed that she placed an order for cocaine and Cat in terms of a s 252 drug
operation.
[260] She explained how the contact was made with the suspect and how he
handed her the drugs after she handed him the notes. She identified accused 1 as
the person who handed over the drugs.
[261] Smit’s testimony was not disputed and t he state proceeded to hand in the
section 212 report which complied with section 212(4) as an exhibit with the
consent of the legal representative of accused 1.
Accused 1:
93
[262] In summary his evidence was that on the day of his arrest , 12 September
2017, he was at the shop when members of the SAPS arrived at the premises and
entered without any introduction. He followed them inside and then Pamplin, with
reference to him, asked the two female officers whether this is the person, to which
they answered in the affirmative. Pamplin asked him for his permit which he
provided whereafter he was arrested and taken away by Felix to Maitland Police
Station. Felix questioned him about the carjacking case that he had made against
Zain.
[263] He admitted that he knew [ND] as she was the girlfriend of Moola. She came
with Moola one evening to the premises and thereafter, on a second occasion, she
arrived at his premises drenched and with a cast on her leg. Moola had asked him if
she c ould s tay for a few days and he agreed . This was why sh e was at the
premises on the day of his arrest. He denied all the allegations made by [ND].
[264] He testified that he met Z […] in East London when he went with a friend to
buy a vehicle. The next day when they were driving back to Cape Town , Z[…] told
him her story and revealed she was ill. His friend left Z[…] and he brought her to his
house. Whilst she was at his house, he took her to church crusades to pray for her
illness and she also attend ed church with him. He denied all the allegations made
by Z[…] against him.
[265] He testified that he does not know [SN] and that she was never at his house.
[266] He testified that he met [CJ] through a friend called Kenny and that she and
Kenny use to visit his house. She was Kenny’s girlfriend and at one stage she and
94
Kenny came to stay at his house. It was only for a short period of about two weeks
and in that time , she and Alex got involved in a relationship. Because of this
relationship the situation became tense in the house, and he told them to move out.
He testified that after some time [CJ] contacted him and asked for he r belongings
that was still at his house. He however told her that he was n ot sure what belonged
to her. He denied all the allegations made by [CJ] against him.
[267] He testified that he met [SM] only once and that was when she came to his
house with accused 2. He was busy sweeping outside when accused 2 and [SM]
arrived. Accused 2 argued with him and he threw a broom at her and then
accidently hit [SM] with the broom . He denies all the allegations by [SM] against
him.
[268] He got to know [MA] when she was sent to his house by accused 2 .
Accused 2 contacted him because she wanted to send the children to Cape Town
as she was going through a difficult time . He told her that it would be difficult for
him, and she said that she was going to send someone to look after the children
whilst in his care. Accused 2 did not mention who this person was or when this
person would be coming. He testified that one evening whilst he was not at home,
he was conta cted by Alex who told him that [MA] was at the prem ises. He went
home and they had a short conversation, whereafter she contacted her family from
his phone. According to him Alex told him that she was not a suitable person to look
after the children as she was asking for tik on her arrival. Due to this information, he
immediately made arrangements for her to go back to Springbok with the taxi. He
95
denies that she was there to do prostitution work or to collect drugs as stated by
accused 2.
[269] [MS] stayed at his house at some point , and she was involved with one or
other scam with two other gentlemen. She was staying in the backroom with them.
He told her one evening that he doesn’t want her to be involve d with these
gentlemen and that she must go back to Springbok. She agreed and he took her
back to Springbok and left her there. After that he never saw her again. He denied
all the allegations made against him by her.
[270] He met [UL] outside a club one evening and they went to a club later with
accused 3. After they left the club, she ended up sleeping over at his house. She
slept in his room, but nothing happened between them. A few days later she came
to his house again, but he did not speak to her. Roberto told her that his girlfriend
was with him. She was outside with the other ladies where they were drinking and
listening to music. The next occasion when he saw her, was when she arrived at
the premises with dirty clothes. He gave her some of his clothes to wear and she
told him that she was not sleeping at home. He left her in the lounge where she was
playing cards with the other gentlemen. Later she came to his room, undressed
herself and climbed into his bed. They had consensual intercourse.
[271] The next morning, she was up early and sitting in the lounge when the police
came to the premises and arrest ed him. She said to the police that he was her
boyfriend. He denied raping her or keeping her at the premises against her wil l. He
further testified that the charges against him was fabricated and that he had been
framed by the SAPS because of the case he opened against the brother of Felix.
96
[272] Accused 1 insisted that Pamplin (and all the other SAPS members involved
in the matter) conspired with Felix and had influenced and or told all the
complainants and [MS] to make the allegations against him.
Accused 2:
[273] She confirmed her marriage to accused 1. The relationship between them
soured after the birth of her daughter , and she moved out in 2012. She went back
to Springbok and stayed with her grandmother for a while and then moved to two
other places, before she bought the house in Boumeesterlaan, Springbok.
[274] The complainants from Springbok are all known to her, and they stayed in
close proximity of each other at some point . She knew [SM] since 2014 and they
were best friends and got into mischief together. They used to go to the clubs in
Springbok to meet up with men and would take them to her house where they
performed sexual favours in return for money.
[275] At one stage [SM] and her decided to go to Cape Town to do prostitution
work to get money. They went to a place in Bellville and rented a room from a
Nigerian lady and made money for a few days. [SM] started using drugs and their
plans went awry. Whilst outside one evening accused 1 found her and called the
police who told her that she must go with him. Accused 1 then took her to the
premises and she slept in his vehicle.
[276] Early the next morning she got [SM] at a shop and went back to accused 1 ’s
house. An argument ensued. Accused 1 accidently hit [SM] with a broom and they
97
left. This was the only time she came to Cape Town with [SM], and she denies the
allegations made by [SM].
[277] She was friends with [MA] whom she met through her brother Byron. [MA]
did not do prostitution like the other girls. She contacted accused 1 because she
wanted to send the children to him. She asked [MA] to go to Cape Town to look
after the children. [MA] at first was hesitant. She offered to pay for a trip to Cape
Town for [MA] to ascertain whether she is comfortable with the set up at the house
of accused 1.
[278] [MA] left for Cape Town on a Sunday, and she saw her the next day back in
Springbok. [MA] did not speak to her, she herself never asked accused 1 what
happened, and she made alternative arrangements for the children. She denied
that she asked [MA] to fetch drugs in Cape Town or to do prostitution work at the
premises of accused 1.
[279] She testified that she was a family friend of [CJ] and visited her house often.
She knew about her problems and circumstances at home. [CJ] went to Cape Town
on her own accord and Kenny paid money for her to come. She never introduced
her to accused 1 and does not know how she ended up at his house. She also
never arranged a lift with accused 1 for her to Cape Town.
[280] She met [MS] through accused 1 when he brought the children to Springbok
and on one occasion [MS] came to ask for accused 1’s phone number. She denied
taking or attempting to take photographs of [SM]. She denied further all the
allegations made by the witnesses against her.
98
Accused 3:
[281] Accused 3 testified that he arrived in Cape Town during May of 2017 and
went to stay with his uncle before he moved in with accused 1 at the premises .
There were other people staying at the premises rented by accus ed 1 and a lot of
people use to frequent the house . He used to work at the club of his uncle in Long
Street doing small jobs but did not work when he was staying with accused 1 at the
premises.
[282] He testified that he met Z […] one evening when they went to a church
crusade. The two of them became good friends and spoke about their personal
lives. When he became involved with girls, Z […] became jealous and this was the
reason, according to him , why she left the house of accused 1. He denied all the
allegations made by her against him.
[283] He met [ND] when she came to the premises with Moola and spent the night.
Accused 1 was not at home at the time and only came later. [ND] came again with
Moola and this time she was on crutches. At one stage both [ND] and Z[…] were
living at the premises. He denied all the allegations made by [ND] against him.
[284] One night when all the other people were at the club , he was contacted by
accused 1 who wanted to know what he was doing. When accused 1 came to pick
him up he had a girl with him, and she became known to him as [UL]. The three of
them went to a garage to buy some food and from there they went to a club. [UL]
said she was looking for her friends. [UL]’s friends did not come with them and the
three of them went home. On their way home [UL] told him that she will organise a
99
lady for him next time. When they got home Alex, Moola and Roberto was playing
cards. Accused 1 and [UL] went into the room and she left early the next morning.
[285] [UL] came back a few days later when accused 1 ’s girlfriend was there.
Roberto stopped her from going into the house and she sat outside with the other
girls. [ND] and Z[…] were also present. The third time she came was the day before
the arrest of accused 1. She slept over the evening in the room of accused 1. He
denied that the evidence of [UL] pertaining to the time she was at the premises was
true.
[286] On the day of accused 1 ’s arrest he was at home together with Moola and
Roberto. [UL] was sitting with them in the lounge when the police arrived and
accused 1 was arrested.
[287] He recounted that on the day of his arrest in November 2017 , there was a
lady at his house which Roberto had brought there. According to him the police took
the lady away and when she came back, she shouted at Pamplin that they can’t
force her to make a case against him. He testified that he believed that he was only
arrested because he was a witness in the carjacking case and because he was
family of accused 1 and because the investigating officer wanted to put pressure on
accused 1.
[288] Accused 3 called a witness who testified she does not know him and the
police never forced her to make a case.
100
Legal framework:
[289] Human trafficking is explained as being a criminal process rather than a
criminal action. As a process, trafficking has several phases namely the act, the
means and the purpose. The typical human trafficking process starts off with the
recruitment or receiving of victims, followed by moving the victims to a place where
they are exploited. 12 Traffickers may also transport or transfer victims within a
country or across national borders to an unfamiliar or another environment. 13 The
transportation phase is where the victim is moved from origin to destination. The
purpose of transport is to alienate the victim so that they become more vulnerable
and thus easier to exploit. Their vulnerability arises from the fact that they do not
have close relatives at their destination, do not have money or means to return
home and sometimes cannot speak the language, are disadvantaged by their legal
status (for example being a minor or female) or do not know the environment they
find themselves in.
[290] The exploitation stage is at the heart of the crime. The exploitative activity
usually begins soon after arrival at the point of destination. Sexual exploitation is
most common. According to the US State Department (June 2008) ‘Trafficking in
Persons Report Violence and Health. Geneva: World Health Organisation,’
trafficking perpetrators control their victims by means of psychological and financial
12 UNODC 2006: xiii-xiv; Truong and Angeles 2005:2; Lee 2007:1; Di Nicola 2007:49-50. Without mentioning
recruitment or transportation, the 2007 US TIP Report states that the common denominator of trafficking
scenarios is the use of force, fraud or coercion to exploit a person for profit – US Department of State 2007:8.
13 UN. GIFT 2008c:11, 12.
101
control mechanisms which minimize or eliminate the need for physical violence or
confinement.14 Often the victims are prevented from any kind of communication.
[291] The United Nations ‘Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in
Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations
Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime’, of which the Republic of
South Africa is a signatory, and which is more commonly known as the Palermo
Protocol, came into being in the year 2000. The Palermo Protocol was the first
international instrument that comprehensively addresse d all aspects of trafficking
and provides the first universally agreed upon and legally binding definition of
human trafficking.15
[292] Article 3 of the Palermo Protocol defines trafficking as:
“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer,
harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other
forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a
position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose
of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services,
slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs”.
[293] The Palermo Protocol definition makes it clear that trafficking covers the
actions of any person involved in the movement of another person for the purpose
of exploitation and can be divided into three parts:
14 S v Palan and Another, Case no RC 6/2014 in the Port Shepstone Regional Court.
15 M Dotteridge and A Jordan ‘UN Trafficking Protocol: An Imperfect Approach’ 2010 (1) Centre for Human
Rights and Humanitarian Law, Washington College of Law 3.
102
294.1 The action of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or
receipt of persons;
294.2 By means of threats, use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or vulnerability, or giving payments or
benefits to a person in control of the victim;
294.3 For the purpose of exploitation: this includes at a minimum,
exploiting the prostitution of others, other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or similar practices
and the removal or organs.16
[294] At least one component from each of these three sections must be present
for the definition of trafficking to be applicable, 17 and these elements must be
proved in criminal prosecutions.
[295] The South African definition of trafficking is wider than the definition offered
by the Palermo Protocol as it covers a broader and more comprehensive list of
actions and means, but the common denominator is the interconnected elements of
the trafficking process namely the action, the means and the exploitative purpose in
order for a case to qualify as a trafficking offence.
[296] The words ‘ for the purpose of’ brings in a mens rea element into the
trafficking definition, implying that trafficking occurs where the perpetrator intended
that the action would lead to one of the specified end results, 18 such as sexual
exploitation. It was submitted that p roving the mens rea element does not require
that the intended aim is actually attained, and trafficking can happen without actual
16 UNODC 2006 Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns Anti- Human Trafficking Unit 51
17 Ibid.
18 Gallagher AT Gallagher 2010 The International Law of Human Trafficking at 34.
103
exploitation taking place.19 “It is sufficient that such exploitation was the intention of
the conduct”.20
[297] I am in agreement with the submissions by the State that actual exploitation
need not be proved by the prosecution nor is it required to be present for purposes
of a conviction on human trafficking.
[298] It appears from the literature provided that traffickers generally have different
roles and motives for committing trafficking and are generally divided into three
parts, namely the recruiter’s, the transporter’s and the exploiter’s environment. 21
“The logical start of a trafficking ring is the recruitment of victims through promises
of work, marriage, a better life or any number of other schemes, and arrangements
for their travel”.22 The recruiter’s objective is to guarantee a steady supply of victims
of trafficking and their undetected delivery to those working within the transporters
environment.23 These criminal groups prey on vulnerable persons such as children,
the poor, the uneducated and the unemployed.24
[299] The aim of those functioning within the transporters environment is to ensure
the safe delivery of victims to those working within the exploiter’s environment. 25
“After relocation, victims are enslaved and held in place through inter alia debt
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 SALRC (2006) SALRC (2006) 2006 Trafficking in Persons Project 131 (Discussion Paper 111) available at
http://www.justice.gov.za/salrc/dpapers/dp111.pdf at 76.
22 Andreas P in Friesendorf C (ed) 2009 Strategies against Human Trafficking: The Role of the Security Sector
available at http://www.bmlv.gv.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/trafficking_mit_fn-2608.pdf, at 129.
23 SALRC (2006) op cit note 26 at 76.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
104
bondage, physical threats and drug dependency”.26 “Other tactics include the use of
armed guards and the creation of the perception that the criminal syndicate has
close links with the police, threats of violence towards the victims and or members
of their families, and rape and physical assault to maintain a constant state of
fear”.27
[300] On the aspect of vulnerability , I was referred to various papers where the
factors that contribute to a person’s vulnerability to being trafficked are explained. It
includes but are not limited to poverty, lack of education, drug addition, the
trafficker’s ability to gauge people ’s vulnerability, taking advantage of people’s
weaknesses and available resources or alternatives within a socio -economic
context. 28 29 30
[301] There is no specific definition of abuse of power. However, this term has
been equated with abuse of authority and should be understood to include the
power male family members might have over female family members in some legal
systems and the power that parents might have over their children.31
[302] I was referred to the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice where it was
affirmed that abuse of a position of vulnerability encompassed “any kind of
vulnerability: mental, affective, family, social or economic. It encloses the range of
26 Peter Andreas op cit note 27 at 129.
27 Ibid.
28 Dotteridge M and Jordan A 'UN Trafficking Protocol: An Imperfect Approach' 2010 (1) Centre for Human
Rights and Humanitarian Law, Washington College of Law 3 available at http://rightswork.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/Issue-Paper-1.pdfat 3.
29 MA Rahman ‘Human Trafficking in the era of Globalization: The case of Trafficking in the Global Market
Economy’ (2011) 2(1) Transcience Journal 54 at 64.
30http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/493040/IPOLFEMM_ET (2014)
493040_EN.pdf
31 Ibid at p 21.
105
desperate situations that may make a human being accept his/her own
exploitation.”32 The abuse of a position of vulnerability is also seen as involving
subtle manipulation of the victim through, for example, the creation of an image of
care and support for a person who has less control over his or her life and/or who is
looking to escape their present circumstances . After having achieved the trust and
consent of a victim traffickers may then use coercion to control and exploit victims.33
[303] Human sex trafficking has been described as “exploitation in its rawest
form”.34 Sexual exploitation is the most common form of trafficking in human
beings35 and is the largest specific sub -category of transnational trafficking. 36
Sexual exploitation implies the act of misusing or mistreating another person
through sex.37
[304] The Human Trafficking Act came into operation on 11 August 2015 and
defines ‘trafficking in persons’ as follows in section 4 of the said Act:
“(1) Any person who delivers, recruits, transports, transfers, harbours, sells,
exchanges, leases, or receives another person within or across the borders of the
Republic, by means of-
(a) a threat of harm;
(b) the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion;
(c) the abuse of vulnerability
(d) fraud;
32 UNODC Issue Paper “Abuse of a position of vulnerability and other “means” within the definition of trafficking
in persons” available at http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/550-abuse-of-a-position-of-vulnerability-
.html?next=551 at p 35.
33 Ibid at p 36.
34 CP Keleher 2010 The Illinois Predator Accountability Act: A Sleeping Giant.
35 UNODC 2014 Human Trafficking FAQS.
36 US TIP Report (2007) at 27.
37 TM Lutya 2012 Human Trafficking of Young Women and Girls for Sexual Exploitation in South Africa at 7.
106
(e) deception;
(f) abduction;
(g) kidnapping;
(h) the abuse of power;
(i) the direct or indirect giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
obtain the consent of the person having control or authority over
another person; or
(j) the direct or indirect giving or receiving of payments, compensation,
rewards, benefits or any other advantage aimed at either the person
or an immediate family member of that person or any other person in
close relationship to that person, for the purpose of any form or
manner of exploitation, is guilty of the offence of trafficking in
persons.”
[305] Abuse of vulnerability for purpose of section 4(1), means any abuse that
leads a person to believe that he or she has no reasonable alternative, but to
submit to the exploitation and includes but is not limited to , taking advantage of the
vulnerabilities of that person resulting from inter alia addiction to the use of any
dependence producing substance s, social circumstances or economic
circumstances.
[306] Debt bondage means the involuntary status or condition that arises from a
pledge by a person of his or her personal services , or the personal services of
another person under his or her control as security for a debt owed, or claimed to
be owed including any debt incurred or claimed to be incurred after the pledge is
given, by that person if: the debt owed or claimed to be owed, reasonably assessed
is manifestly excessive; the length and nature of those services are not respectively
limited and defined ; or the value of those services , reasonably assessed is not
applied towards the liquidation of the debt or purported debt.
107
[307] Section 11 of the Human Trafficking Act states as follows:
“11. Liability of persons for offences under this Chapter:
(1) It is no defence to a charge of contravening section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (1) or
10 that-
(a) a child who is a victim of trafficking or a person having control or
authority o ver a child who is a victim of trafficking has consented to the
intended exploitation, or the action which was intended to constitute an
offence under this Chapter or that the intended exploitation or action did not
occur, even if none of the means referred to in section 4 (1) (a) to (j) have
been used; or
(b) an adult person who is a victim of trafficking has consented to the
intended exploitation, or the action which was intended to constitute an
offence under this Chapter or that the intended exploitation or action did not
occur, if one or more of the means referred to in section 4 (1) (a) to (j) have
been used."
[308] In S v V 2000(1) SACR 453 (SCA) the position pertaining to the onus of
proof in criminal matters were aptly stated as follows:
'[3] ... It is trite that there is no obligation upon an accused person, where the State
bears the onus, "to convince the court". If his version is reasonably possibly true he
is entitled to his acquittal even though his explanation is improbable. A court is not
entitled to convict unless it is satisfied not only that the explanation is improbable
but that beyond any reasonable doubt it is false. It is permissible to look at the
probabilities of the case to determine whether the accused's version is reasonably
possibly true but whether one subjectively believes him is not the test. As pointed
108
out in many judgments of this Court and other courts the test is whether there is a
reasonable possibility that the accused's evidence may be true.'
[309] The onus which rests on the State to prove the guilt of an accused is beyond
reasonable doubt and not beyond a shadow of a doubt.38
[310] In S v Mbuli 2003 (1) SACR 97 (SCA) at paragraph 57 and S v Hadebe and
Others 1998 (1) SACR 422 (SCA) at 426 f -h the Appellate Court , with approval ,
followed the reasoning in Moshepi and Others v R LAC (1980 – 1984) 57 on 59 F-H
where the following was said:
“The question for determination is whether, in the light of all the evidence adduced
in the trial, the guilt of the appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt.
The breaking down of a body of evidence into its component parts is obviously a
useful aid to a proper understanding and evaluation of it. But, in doing so, one must
guard against a tendency to focus too intently on the separate and individual part of
what is, after all a mosaic of proof. Doubts about one aspect of the evidence led in a
trial, may arise when that aspect is viewed in isolation. Those doubts may be set at
rest when it is evaluated again together with all the other available evidence. That is
not to say a broad and indulgent approach is appropriate when evaluating evidence.
Far from it. There is no substitute for a detailed and critical examination of each and
every component in a body of evidence. But, once that has been done, it is
necessary to step back a pace and consider the mosaic as a whole. If that is not
done, one may fail to see the wood for the trees.” 39
Credibility:
38 See: S v Ntshele 1998 (2) SACR 178, R v De Villiers 1944 AD 493 at 5 and S v Toubie 2004 (1) SACR 530
W at 533 and 534.
39 See S v Radebe 1991 (2) SACR 166 (T) on 183 c-e; S v Ramulifho 2013 (1) SACR 388 (SCA).
109
[311] The complainants presented (and confirmed) that they are persons who had
not had the benefit of substantial formal education. They further all testified that
they found themselves in challenging socio-economic circumstances prior to
coming to Cape Town , to live and work for accused 1 at the premises. All the
complainants admitted to using drugs prior to meeting accused 1 and most of them,
bar [MA], admitted to selling their bodies for money at some point in time. It was
however painfully clear from the evidence by the complainants that although they
were anxious and unfamiliar with the court process, that they were traumatised by
the manner in which they were held and treated at the premises by the accused.
Save for [UL], who I will deal with below, I found them all to have been truthful,
credible and reliable witnesses.
[312] The complainants evidence considered with that of [MS] and [SM] painted a
clear picture of the modus operandi of the accused. The complainants from East
London and those from Springbok did not know each other previously, had no
reason to corroborate the versions of the other complainants and did not seek to
implicate the accused on events they had no knowledge of. The f ew instances
where they contradicted each other as pointed out by the legal representatives of
the accused, are minor and immaterial in the broader context of the evidence
before Court.
[313] On the issue of the inconsistences pointed out by counsel on behalf of the
accused, I refer to the m atter of S v Mkohle 1990 (1) SACR 95 (A) 98f-g where
Nestadt JA stated as follows:
“Contradictions per se do not lead to the rejection of a witness' evidence. As
110
Nicholas J, as he then was, observed in S v Oosthuizen 1982 (3) SA 571(T) at
576B-C, they may simply be indicative of an error. And (at 576G-H) it is stated that
not every error made by a witness affects his credibility; in each case the trier of
fact has to make an evaluation; taking into account such matters as the nature of
the contradictions, their number and importance, and their bearing on other parts
of the witness' evidence. Williamson J obviously did this. In my view, no fault can
be found with his conclusion that what inconsistencies and differences there were,
were of a relatively minor nature and the sort of thing to be expected from honest
but imperfect recollection, observation and reconstruction’. One could add that, if
anything, the contradictions point away from the conspiracy relied on.”
[314] I am of the view that the contradictions alluded to are not material and does
not detract from the complainants and the other state witness es’ credibility. If
anything, it points away from the conspiracy alleged by the accused.
[315] The evidence of the complainant s, considering the time that had passed
since their respective ordeals in Brooklyn and the amount of substance abuse that
had occurred, were remarkedly good.
[316] There is no legal provision requiring corroboration of the evidence of children
or single witnesses, but it is settled law that the evidence of children and a single
witness should be approached with caution and considered having regard to all the
strengths and weaknesses of such evidence.40
[317] Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 states that an accused
person may be convicted of any offence on the single evidence of a competent
witness.
40 See for example S v Sauls and Others 1981 (3) SA 172 (A) at 179G-180G and S v Webber 1971
(3) SA 754 (A) at 759D-E.
111
[318] The evidence of the state witnesses was corroborated by other independent
witnesses and by the accused themselves in many respects as set out later.
[319] Contrary to the witnesses on behalf of the State, accused 1 did not impress
as a credible witness and his testimony was simply unbelievable. The most
incredible aspect of his testimony is the statement that no drugs were sold at his
house despite him being caught dealing drugs , for which he offered no explanation,
during October 2016 whilst accused 2 was with him in his vehicle.
[320] He could also not offer any explanation as to why all these women, who was
according to him simply told what to say by members of the SAPS, would harbour
such strong and distressing feelings about him . In my view the feeling s and
emotions displayed by the witnesses during the trial were real.
[321] Whilst it is clearly true that accused 1’s car was stolen during a carjacking in
August 2017 which he reported to the police and that one Zain was charged for
such incident, there is simply no evidence, other than the word of accused 1, that
Zain is the brother of Felix 41, to indicate any suspicious conduct by Felix. The fact
that he was originally assigned to the case is also of no relevance as he was on the
version of accused 1 replaced with another member of the SAPS when he
complained about the alleged relationship between Felix and Zain, which member
succeeded in finding his vehicle and arrested Zain.
41 They don’t have the same surnames and no explanation was tendered as to their family ties other than
that they are brothers. During the evidence of accused 1 and 3 they often referred to friends as brothers.
112
[322] Accused 1’s version that the charges against him were fabricated, by all 7
complainants and the other State witnesses, because of the carjacking case he
made against the brother of Felix , is simply far-fetched and rejected. Even if Felix
for some unknown reason had the power and influence to mobilise the human
trafficking unit of the Hawks to do his bidding, it is not what happened on the
undisputed facts. What did happen is that [CJ], already in March 2017, made a
statement against the accused in Springbok which complaints were independently
investigated by Mpayieli. His investigation led him to [SM] who made a statement in
Springbok on 11 September 2017. Pamplin on the other hand became involved
with the matter when he was requested, after a report by [ND]’s father on 12
September 2017, that she was held captive at the premises and then, only in 2018 ,
became aware that similar complaints were levelled against the accused by the
women from Springbok.
Did the State prove the remaining charges against accused 1:
[323] For good order I deal with each complainant separately:
[324] In respect of [CJ]:
324.1 He transported her to the premises with the full knowledge and
intention that he is going to exploit her to earn money by way of
prostitution. He kept her at the premises for days under the pretext that
she would be unsafe anywhere else and then exposed her to the drug
called “rocks”. After she had sex with two men, he declared that she
113
will work for him which she simply accepted due to her vulnerable
state.
324.2 He kept [CJ] enslaved by supplying her with the drug “rocks” so much
so that she became addicted. The money she made from the
prostitution regardless of the amount was substituted for a piece of
rock which enabled her to carry on working for him. If on occasion she
did not work, he would deprive of her of the drug and used the
acquisition thereof as a m ethod for her to continue with prostitution for
his benefit.
324.3 [CJ] was under constant supervision by the accused or one of his
brothers of friends and he knew exactly how many clients she had
when she went out. It is immaterial in light of her vulnerable state if the
door to the room could be opened with a tool from the inside or
whether or not there were burglar bars on the windows.
324.4 He used fear and addiction as a m ethod to keep [CJ] to continue
working for him. When she expressed the desire to leave, he become
aggressive. When she managed to escape, he traced her, brought her
back to his house against her will and assaulted her. Thereafter the
threat of physical assaults was used as a method to prevent the
complainant from attempting to run away again.
324.5 After her attempted escape he denied her freedom of movement by
keeping her confined to her room, preventing her from working and
114
also depriving her of drugs. This was the punishment the accused
used as a tool to further his exploitation.
324.6 [CJ] was solely reliant on the accused for shelter, food and basic
necessities. She lived like a slave.
324.7 During the second assault the accused t errorised her into submission
and confiscated her identity document in the furtherance of his
intention to imprison her at the premises.
[325] In respect of [SM]:
325.1 [SM] was given false information by accused 1 as to how the
prostitution would work if she agreed to came to Cape Town to work
for him. She was told that she would have free will and work for
herself. However, when she got to Cape Town, she discovered that
the accused made the rules, and she was not allowed to deviate from
it.
325.2 She was transported to Cape Town under false pretences as the
accused had every intention of enslaving her. This is further borne out
by the fact that he immediately gave her the drug “rocks” to smoke
instead of her drug of choice, it being tik.
115
325.3 He enslaved her by supplying her with the drug “rocks” to the extent
that she became addicted. The money she made from the prostitution
regardless of the amount was substituted for a piece of rock. If on
occasion she did not work, the accused would deprive of her of the
drug and used the acquisition thereof as a method to motivate her to
continue with the prostitution.
325.4 She was under constant supervision as the accused knew exactly how
many clients she had per night.
325.5 He used fear and addiction as a method to ensure that she would
continue working for him. When she expressed the desire to leave, he
become aggressive. When she ran away, he traced her, brought her
back to his house against her will and assaulted her. The threat of
physical assaults was used as method to prevent her from attempting
to run away again.
325.6 After her attempted escapes, he den ied her freedom of movement by
keeping her confined to her room, preventing her from working and
also depriving her of drugs. This was the punishment the accused
used as a tool to further his exploitation.
325.7 She was, as the other complainants, solely reliant on the accused for
shelter, food and basic necessities. She was kept like a slave in the
premises.
116
325.8 On the occasions [SM] managed to escape, he managed to find her
and would force her to work for him again. She had no choice but to
do what was demanded.
[326] In respect of [MA]:
326.1 She was sent to the premises under the false belief that she would
collect drugs from him to take back to accused 2 in Springbok.
326.2 On her arrival she realised that she was in fact transported to Cape
Town to be sexually exploited by the accused.
326.3 She managed to make arrangements and escaped the being
enslaved.
[327] In respect of [SD]
327.1 She was given false information by accused 1 as to how the
prostitution would work if she came to Cape Town to work for him.
When she arrived in Cape Town, she discovered that the accused
made the rules, and she was not allowed to deviate from it. She was
transported to Cape Town under false pretences as the accused had
every intention of enslave her.
117
327.2 The complainant was solely reliant on the accused for shelter, food
and basic necessities. She was kept as a slave. When she fell ill and
could not continue working as a prostitute the accused withheld his
affection as a form of punishment as he knew she regarded him as a
father.
327.3 She confirmed the assaults which the accused perpetrated on [CJ]
and [SN]. She further confirmed that the accused would be become
aggressive when they brought in too little money. He regarded her as
his property and was happiest when she was working like “a
machine”.
[328] In respect of [ND]:
328.1 The accused transported [ND] and [SN] to Cape Town with the sole
intention of exploiting them. This time he used the drug heroine, [ND]’s
drug of choice, as the tool to enslave her. He kept her addicted to it
and used the drug and rocks as a method to keep her working as a
prostitute for him.
328.2 She was enslaved by the accused through the use of drugs which fed
her addition. The money she made from the prostitution , regardless of
the amount, was taken in return for more drugs.
328.3 She was solely reliant on the accused for shelter, food and basic
necessities. She lived like a slave.
118
328.4 After she was in an accident the accused deprived her of drugs and
used the acquisition thereof as a method to entice her to continue with
the prostitution. He kept her against her will confined in the premises,
more particularly the backroom of his home, and did not allow her to
leave.
[329] In respect of [SN]:
329.1 She was given false information by accused 1 as to how the
prostitution would work if she came to Cape Town to work for him.
However, when she got to Cape Town, she discovered that the
accused made the rules, and she was not allowed to deviate from it.
She was transported to Cape Town under false pretences as the
accused had every intention of enslaving and exploiting her. She was
immediately taught how to use “rocks” rather than her drug of choice,
it being tik.
329.2 She was e nslaved using the drug rocks to which she became
addicted. The money she made from the prostitution regardless of the
amount she had to hand over and would be given a piece of rock.
329.3 He used fear and addiction as a method of motivating her to continue
working for him. When the complainant ran away, the accused traced
her, brought her back to his house against her will and assaulted her.
The threat of physical assaults was used as a m ethod to prevent her
from attempting to run away again.
119
329.4 After her attempted escape, he denied her freedom of movement by
keeping her confined to her room, preventing her from working and
also depriving her of drugs. This was the punishment the accused
used as a tool to further his exploitation.
329.5 The complainant was solely reliant on the accused for shelter, food
and basic necessities. She was held as a slave.
329.6 [SN] was no doubt a child in terms of the definition of the Children’s
Act, when she was held at the premises.
[330] The following evidence by the accused supports the State’s case: Accused 1
admitted to knowing [CJ], [SM], [MS] and [MA] who are all from Springbok, where
accused 2 lived. He admitted that [CJ], [MS] and [MA] had been inside his
premises. He further admitted that he knows [SD], [UL] and [ND] and that they had
been inside the premises. He did not dispute the evidence regarding the dealing in
drugs charges against him.
[331] He had regular contact with accused 2 even though she was living with the
children in Springbok.
Did the State prove the charges against accused 2:
[332] Accused 2 was evasive and very reluctant to answer the questions posed to
her. She, in my view, was not a reliable witness.
[333] In respect of [CJ]:
120
333.1 She befriended [CJ] and after discovering her vulnerabilities arranged
that she be transported to Cape Town by accused 1 under the
pretence of getting a lift to Cape Town where she could pursue a
“better life” . The trip from Springbok to Cape Town was at the
accused’s direction.
333.2 She exploited the trust relationship which existed between her and
[CJ] by sending her with accused 1 to Cape T own knowing the
business he conducted.
[334] In respect of [MA]:
334.1 She knew the vulnerable circumstances of [MA] and the extent of the
addiction problem which she faced. She sent the complainant to Cape
Town under false pretences and by way of a fraud in order to be
exploited by accused 1.
334.2 She exploited the trust relationship which existed between her and
[MA] (who was a friend of her brother) by sending her to the premises
in Cape Town knowing the business of accused 1. She was fully
aware of the vulnerability of [MA] as a result of her socio -economic
circumstances and addition to drugs.
[335] In respect of [SM]
335.1 She befriended this young vulnerable woman at a difficult time in her
life. She brought [SM], when she was still very young to Cape Town
121
and taught her the business of prostitution . She later used her
influence, to the detriment of [SM], to exploit her and to make her
more compliant.
335.2 She placed [SM] in a position which would have left her with no choice
but to work for accused 1 when she abruptly informed her that she
had no taxi fare money for her to go home back to Springbok.
335.3 She was instrumental in [SM] coming to work for accused 1 as a
prostitute, as she used her relationship with her to her own and
accused 1’s advantage. I agree with the state that quite c onveniently
the offer of employment at the premises of accused 1 only followed
after accused 2 had shown her the business of prostitution on a
previous occasion.
335.4 The relationship between accused 2 and [SM] came to an end when
she sold her to a person involved in the exploitation of woman for taxi
fare home.
335.5 The accused contention that she was not aware that [SM] was at the
house of accused 1 is rejected as she knew exactly how to get hold of
[SM] when her family started looking for her by contacting her on the
cellular phone which accused 1 had purchased. She clearly knew
where [SM] was and what she was doing.
122
[336] The following evidence by the accused supports the State’s case: Accused 2
admitted to introducing [SM] to prostitution. She admitted to practising prostitution
from her home in Springbok during 2016 and being convicted thereof.
[337] She admitted to sending [CJ] with accused 1 to his premises in Brooklyn.
She admitted to sending [MA] to the premises in Brooklyn 1 albeit to collect drugs.
[338] She knew accused 1 was dealing in drugs as she was with him when he was
caught selling drugs in October 2016 whilst she was with him.
Did the State prove the charges against accused 3?
[339] Having regard to the definition of trafficking, the involvement of accused 3 is
clear.
[340] According to [ND], [SD] and [SN], accused 3 was the person who collected
them from the station on their arrival in Cape Town with accused 1 from East
London. He was staying at the house and sleeping in the lounge. They testified that
they would give the money that they made on the street to accused 3 if accused 1
was not at home and that a ccused 3 would sell the drugs to them. The selling of
drugs appears to be the drugs they were given when they handed over the money
they had earned doing prostitution.
[341] [SN] confirmed that a ccused 3 would give them the “wake-up” drug before
they went on the street.
123
[342] [ND] testified that accused 3 would sell the drugs to her, [SD] and [SN] when
accused 1 was not at the house. Sometimes she would hand the money that she
made from sex work over to accused 3 and further that when she brought clients
over to the premises accused 1 and 3 would be in the lounge. According to her
accused 3 was aware of what was going on and assisted in the business at the
premises.
[343] [SD] testified that accused 3 sold them drugs and she gave money to him if
accused 1 was not around.
[344] From the aforesaid evidence a ccused 3 was the enforcer when accused 1
was not around. He was part and parcel of the trafficking operation with accused 1
and 2. His role was to collect the girls and accused 1 on arrival, he provided them
with the “wake-up” drug before they started working and he collected the money
which the girls made on a particular night and would in turn supply them with more
drugs to feed their addiction. He also cooked for them.
[345] Accused 3 admitted to knowing [SD], [UL] and [ND] and that he had lived at
the premises albeit only for a short period according to him . He admitted that he did
not work whilst he lived at the premises.
General:
[346] It was not the case of any of the accused that the complainants had
consented to exploitation. Accused 1 and 3 denies any drug use or prostitution work
at the premises. In fact, the version of accused 1 was that [SM] was never inside
124
the premises, that [MA] was sent away as he was not satisfied that she could look
after his children due to her drug use, [ND] was a girlfriend of Moola, [SD] went to
church and on a church crusade with him and was sick and he did not know [SN].
[347] Accused 2’s version was that she had no idea why [SM] and [CJ] was at the
premises and that [MA] was sent to the premises to look after her children there.
The suggestion during argument that the girls consented to be exploited is not
supported by the evidence of the accused.
[348] In respect of [MA], I point out that the fact that the intended exploitation did
not happen, is not a defence in terms of s 11(1)(a) and (b) the Human Trafficking
Act. In the matter of S v Coetzer42 the accused was convicted of trafficking although
the complainants were rescued prior to any exploitation accruing.
[349] In the matter of S v Bheki Wellington Nxasana and Others 43, with reference
to s 11(1)(a), Goosen J confirmed that “. .Now this section when it is read with
section 4(1) suggests that where the victim is a child it is not necessary to establish
that one or more of the elements as defined by the section was employed and in
any event section 11 precludes consent to the exploitation as a defence”. In respect
of [SN] (who was according to my calculations 14 years old when she was held at
the premises), the state did not have to prove that one or more of the means
referred to in section 4(1)(a) to (j) had been used. Consequently, by accepting the
evidence of [SN], accused 1 and 3 must be found to have committed the offence of
trafficking in terms of s 4(1) read with s 11(1)(a) of the Human Trafficking Act.
42 See unreported North Gauteng High Court Judgment under case number CC 76/2021.
43 Unreported decision by Goosen J under case number CC 16/2018 in the Eastern Cape Local Division.
125
[350] Having regard to the definition of recruitment, accused 2 clearly furnished
accused 1 and 3 with a fresh supply of girls to work for them from time to time.
[SM], [CJ] and [MA] not only had pre -existing drug addiction issues but also had
serious issues with their families. They in my view were coerced and deceived by
accused 2 to work for accused 1 in Cape Town and had no idea to what they would
be subjected to at the premises.
[351] It was argued that the State could not proceed with the charges of trafficking
against the accused due to the absence of a certificate in terms of the Human
Trafficking Act. The Human Trafficking Act contains no requirement that a certificate
must first be obtained before the State can charge a person with trafficking in
persons. Section 19, which deals with reporting of and dealing with adult victims of
trafficking, sets out processes which should be followed when there is an encounter
with or it is suspected that a person might be a victim of trafficking.
[352] Section 22 deals with the criminal prosecution of a victim of trafficking and
sets out the procedure that needs to be followed. Section 22(1) deals with decisions
whether to prosecute a victim of trafficking , as it stipulates that a prosecutor must
give due consideration to whether the offence was committed as a direct result of
the person’s position as a victim of trafficking Section 22 (2) states that if, during a
criminal prosecution of a person the prosecutor, on reasonable ground, suspect that
that person is a victim of trafficking and that the offence wa s committed as a direct
result of the person’s position as a victim of trafficking , the prosecutor must apply to
the court for a postponement and, in the prescribed manner, refer that person to the
provincial department of social development which mu st conduct an assessment in
126
terms of s s 18(6) or 19(8) as the case may be. Section 22 (3) requires a letter of
recognition that an adult person is a victim of trafficking or that a child is a victim of
trafficking which serves as a ground for the withdrawal of the criminal prosecution
or the discharge of the victim of trafficking , if the prosecutor is satisfied that the
offence was committed as a direct result of the person ’s position as a victim of
trafficking.
[353] No criminal prosecution may be instituted or proceeded with against a
person suspected to be a victim of trafficking without the written authorization o f the
Director of Public Prosecution.
[354] Section 22 is not applicable in this matter as none of the accused w ere
victims of trafficking.
[355] On the issue of the wording of the indictment, the State was criticized for an
error on the indictment as it used the word “and” and nor “or” in respect of the
means employed by the accused with reference to s 4 of the Human Trafficking Act.
As set out previously the trial took an inordinate amount of time due to the nature of
the charges and the circumstances of the victims. The legal representatives of the
accused were fully appraised of the wording of the Act , which leaves no room for
any doubt as to the requirements , and had not raised any objection to the
indictment prior to the accused pleading. In the circumstances there was no
prejudice in my view to the accused as a result of this error.
[356] It is correct that s 261 A (2) of the CPA provides possible competent verdicts
where a person is charged with trafficking in terms of s 4 of the Human Trafficking
127
Act, or where the charge is the offence of involvement in trafficking as provided for
in s 10 of the Act. The indictment did not include any alternative charges to the
counts levelled against accused but they were all charged with debt bondage, using
the services of a victim of trafficking, living on the earnings of prostitution,
kidnapping and assault.
[357] It is an accused’s Constitutional right to be informed of any charge in
sufficient detail to enable him or her to formulate a defence and this includes the
right to be properly informed of competent verdicts before he or she pleads. 44 It has
been held that a failure to explain a competent verdict to an unrepresented accused
is not in itself a fatal irregularity as the main consideration is whether the accused
received a fair trial.45
[358] The accused knew exactly what the charges and the under-pinning facts
were that they faced and denied all the charges against them.
Conclusion:
[359] In my analysis of the evidence, the State has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused had trafficked the complainants as alleged and further that
accused 1 and 3 had lived of the proceeds of prostitution.
[360] I accept the evidence of the complainants that they were assaulted by
accused 1. Accused 3 was not charged as a co -conspirator and I, on the evidence
44 See S v Kester 1996 (1) SACR 461 (B) at 469h-470c
45 See S v Masita 2005 (1) SACR 272 (C) at 277a-b.
128
before me cannot find him guilty of assault or on the remaining charge of rape. The
same applies to accused 2 in respect of these charges.
[361] The state did not prove in my view, that accused 2 had lived of the proceeds
of prostitution and she must accordingly also be found not guilty in respect of these
charges.
[362] On the evidence of [CJ], I accept that accused 1 confiscated her identity
document for the purpose of promoting his exploitation of her and to keep her
enslaved and dependant.
[363] This leaves the remaining charge of rape against accused 1 in respect of
[UL]. Even though I found corroboration in her evidence in respect of the charges
made by the other complainants and accept that the events occurred a long time
ago, her account of how she was kidnapped and raped leaves me unable to find
that the State had proved these charges beyond reasonable doubt. Her testimony
was that she reported the rape to Durbaum , but Durbaum did not confirm her
version. She also gave a different version at the hospital to what she testified in
court, which version also differed from her statement which was placed before
Court.
[364] As in the matter of The State v Angelo Fran cisco Muambo (Unreported
matter in the High Court of Gaugteng under case number CC 98/2018) the totality
of the evidence show that trafficking took place because of the co -operation
between accused 1 and 2 in respect of the complainants from Springbok. Accused
129
3 similarly co -operated and assisted accused 1 to recruit and transport the
complainants from East London to Cape Town in order to exploit them.
[365] I, for the reasons stated above find as follows:
1. In respect of accused 1:
[The Human Trafficking Charges]
Count 1: Guilty
Count 7: Guilty
Count 8: Guilty
Count 15: Guilty
Count 28: Guilty
Count 34: Guilty
[Debt Bondage]
Count 2: Not guilty
Count 9: Not guilty
Count 16: Not guilty
Count 29: Not guilty
Count 35: Not guilty
[Using the services of a victim of human trafficking}
Count 3: Guilty
Count 10: Guilty
Count 17: Guilty
Count 30: Guilty
Count 36: Guilty
[Living on the earnings of prostitution]
Count 4: Guilty
Count 11: Guilty
Count 18: Guilty
130
Count 31: Guilty
Count 37: Guilty
[Kidnapping]
Count 5: Guilty
Count 12: Guilty
Count 19: Guilty
Count 21: Not guilty
Count 32: Guilty
Count 38: Guilty
[Assault with the intention to grievous bodily harm]
Count 6: Guilty
Count 13: Guilty
Count 20: Guilty
Count 33: Guilty
Count 39: Guilty
[Rape]
Count 22: Not guilty
[Possession, Destruction, Confiscation, Concealment of or Tampering
with documents]
Count 14: Guilty
[Dealing in drugs]
Count 40: Guilty
2. In respect of accused 2:
[The Human Trafficking Charges]
Count 1: Guilty
Count 7: Guilty
131
Count 8: Guilty
[Debt Bondage]
Count 2: Not guilty
Count 9: Not guilty
[Using the services of a victim of human trafficking}
Count 3: Not guilty
Count 10: Not guilty
[Living on the earnings of prostitution]
Count 4: Not guilty
Count 11: Not guilty
[Kidnapping]
Count 5: Not guilty
Count 12: Not guilty
[Assault with the intention to grievous bodily harm]
Count 6: Not guilty
Count 13: Not guilty
[Possession, Destruction, Confiscation, Concealment of or Tampering
with documents]
Count 14: Not guilty
3. In respect of accused 3:
[The Human Trafficking Charges]
Count 15: Guilty
Count 28: Guilty
Count 34: Guilty
132
[Debt Bondage]
Count 16: Not guilty
Count 29: Not guilty
Count 35: Not guilty
[Using the services of a victim of human trafficking}
Count 17: Guilty
Count 30: Guilty
Count 36: Guilty
[Living on the earnings of prostitution]
Count 18: Guilty
Count 31: Guilty
Count 37: Guilty
4. [Kidnapping]
Count 19: Guilty
Count 21: Not guilty
Count 32: Guilty
Count 38: Guilty
[Assault with the intention to grievous bodily harm]
Count 20: Not guilty
Count 33: Not guilty
Count 39: Not guilty
5. [Possession, Destruction, Confiscation, Concealment of or Tampering
with documents]
Count 14: Not guilty
______________________________
A De Wet
Acting Judge of the High Court
133
Dates of Hearing: 02 November 2021, 9 -11 November 2021 , 17 and 18 November
2021, 22 and 23 November 2021, 29 and 30 November 2021, 24 -
27 January 2022, 31 January 2022, 21 – 24 February 2022, 14 - 18
March 2022 , 22 and 23 March 2022, 18 – 21 July 2022 , 25 July
2022, 31 August 2022, 01 September 2022, 21 – 24 November
2022, 23 - 25 January 2023, 30 January 2023, 02 February 2023, 06
February 2023, 8 and 9 February 2023, 13 – 15 February 2023, 27
March 2023, 29 and 30 March 2023, 11 - 13 April 202 3, 25 April
2023, 22 and 23 May 2023, 25 May 2023, 29 – 31 May 2023, 01
June 2023, 07 June 2023, 10 and 11 June 2023, 15 June 2023, 10 –
14 July 2023, 14 – 16 August 2023, 18 – 20 August 2023, 24 August
2023, 28 August 2023, 29 and 30 August 2023, 21 and 22
September 2023, 26 – 28 September 2023, 14 November 2023, 16
November 2023, 26 January 202 4, 14 February 2024, 28 March
2024, 30 April 2024 and 3 May 2024.
Date of Judgment: 17 May 2024 and 24 May 2024
On behalf of the State: Adv M Marshall and Adv S Buffkins
Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions Western Cape
Email: mmarshall@npa.gov.za
On behalf of accused 1 and 3: Adv M Sibda
Instructed by Legal Aid South Africa
Email: bashiersibda@gmail.com
On behalf of accused 2: Adv S Kuun
Instructed by Legal Aid South Africa
Email: susannak@legal-aid.co.za