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)

Case no: CC 09/2023

In the matter between:

THE STATE

and

LUNGILE BUHLUNGU ACCUSED

Heard: 17 June 2025
Delivered: 18 June 2025
Coram: Bhoopchand AJ

Summary: Criminal Law -Sentence- 39-year-old male. Serial sex offender. Serial
Rapist. Convicted of six counts of rape, two counts of assault to do grievous bodily
harm, four counts of kidnapping, one count of r obbery with aggravating
circumstances, and one count of possession of a firearm . A quartet of factors
includes the crime, the criminal, the community, and the consequences for the
victim. Whether deviation from prescribed minimum sentences is warranted.
Rehabilitation of sexual offenders and serial rapists. Risk factors for reoffending.

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE



Bhoopchand AJ:

[1] The Court found the Accused , Lungile Buhlungu (Buhlungu) guilty o n six
counts of rape, four counts of kidnapping, two counts of assault with intent to do
grievous bodily harm, one count of robbery with aggravating circumstances, and one
count of possessing a firearm. Each of these counts , except for th at of assault with
intent to do grievous bodily harm, carries the minimum sentence. The Criminal Law
Amendment Act 105 of 1997, prescribes life imprisonment for the rape offences,
fifteen years for robbery with aggravating circumstances , five years for kidnaping,
and five years for assault with intent to do grievous bodily . T he Court has a
discretion to deviate from the prescribed sentences if the convict, Mr Buhlungu
(Buhlungu), can demonstrate substantial and compelling circumstances to persuade
the Court to deviate from the minimum sentences. The Court has the discretion to
impose a fair sentence on the count of possession of a firearm.

[2] Counsel on behalf of Buhlungu indicated that the defence did not intend to
lead any evidence in mitigation of sentence, but asked the Court to have regard to
the State’s witness who had the opportunity to consult with Buhlungu and his sister.

[3] The State led the evidence of Elmarie Alta Myburgh (Myburgh), a Lieutenant
Colonel in the South African Police Service (SAPS) attached to the Investigative
Psychology Section. She is a Criminologist with a BA Honours degree in Criminology
and Psychology. She has more than 31 years of experience in the SAPS and has
been attached to the Investigative Psychology unit since April 1997. She has
attended numerous courses , including sexual offences investig ations, sexual and
violence risk assessment, forensic sex crimes investigations, and the assessment
and management of stalking. She has provided training on, among others, serial

rape and attended and presented at local and international conferences. She is
amply qualified to testify on the key offences involved in this case.

[4] Myburgh provided a pre -sentence report on Buhlungu , which was directed at
Buhlungu’s rehabilitative prospects. She listed her sources of information and
defined certain key terms. She interviewed Buhlungu directly and his sister, Zukiswa
Buhlungu, telephonically. She defined a serial sexual offender as a person who
sexually offends another individual more than once. A serial rapist is a specific sub -
type of a serial sexual offender, and the classification is made when an offender
commits two or more separate rapes. The rapist engages in any unlawful intentional
and non -consensual sexual penetration with two or more victims, at different
occasions, over an extended period. Serial rapists have a psychological motivation
to rape, yet can distinguish right from wrong and act under that distinction.

[5] Buhlungu had a previous conviction for theft committed on 13/10/2012. He
was convicted on 27/02/2015 and released on parole on 17/11/2016. Buhlungu was
convicted of six counts of rape which happened on two different occasions. He can
be classified as a serial rapist. The evidence did not point to him being a stalker. His
other convictions relate to violent crimes. The assessment of Buhlungu’s risk for
reoffending comprises a consideration of both positive and negative factors and the
weight that is to be attached to the factors thus identified.1 Myburgh provided a
bibliography consisting of five papers relating to the subject matter of the offences
committed by Buhlungu.

[6] Buhlungu’s risk for future reoffending emanates from him being classified as a
serial rapist, of threatening his victims with a firearm, of possessing an attitude that
supports sexual violence, denial of the crimes, lacking remorse, personal history of
violence, lack ing insight, substance abuse, relationship problems and recidivism

violence, lack ing insight, substance abuse, relationship problems and recidivism
amongst serial sexual offenders.

[7] Myburgh testified that serial rapists do not stop raping women by themselves ,
and the only way that they will be stopped is by arrest. Rapists are one of the types

1 Douglas, Hart, Webster & Belfrage, 2013 Historical Clinical Risk Management (HCR-20 V3)
Version 3, Assessing risk for violence-user guide, Development and overview.

of sexual offenders that have the highest rates of re-offending, even after
interventions aimed at addressing the issue have been undertaken. She stated the
general bel ief that serial rapists cannot be rehabilitated and will continue doing so
when they are released from prison. Numerous examples exist of serial rapists who
re-offended after a period of incarceration.

[8] Serial rapists often use violence or the threat of violence to control their
victims. Some offenders resort to threats while others use weapons to obtain
submission. Buhlungu’s victims in the 2014 and 201 9 incidents reported that they
were threatened with a firearm, instilling fear of physical harm if they did not
cooperate. Buhlungu indicated that he satisfied his sexual urges through the number
of girlfriends he had, and when they were not available, he called upon sex workers
to fulfil those needs. His cul tural belief system requires women to surrender
themselves willingly to him. Myburgh was questioned on whether she had any
experience in dealing with the type of allegations Buhlungu attributed to his culture.
She did not, but suggested that if this were so, then there would have been no
reason for him to threaten his victims with a firearm. Myburgh was cross-examined
on this testimony. It was put to her that she misunderstood what Buhlungu said. She
checked her notes , which revealed that Buhlungu told her that some Xhosa girls
would give sex willingly. The intended explanation was that where Buhlungu lived, if
men socialise with women and buy them alcohol, they end up sleeping together .
That is how it is done.

[9] She stated that an offender wh o has an attitude that supports or condones
sexual violence may also lack empathy towards his victims. Myburgh was asked
whether the visible distress Buhlungu’s victims displayed in Court had any impact on
him. It did not seem to have affected him. The Cou rt needs to say little about the

him. It did not seem to have affected him. The Cou rt needs to say little about the
archaic views Buhlungu holds about women. It has expressed itself adequately
about this topic.

[10] Myburgh reported that Buhlungu maintained his innocence, asserting that the
sexual offences he was convicted of were consensual. The victims knew that they
were lying in Court as they were aware they were not raped. He explained to
Myburgh he was found guilty of the crimes because he failed to prove to the Court

he did not commit intentional rapes. He asserted further that in all cases, alcohol was
involved. Myburgh interpreted his response to mean that Buhlungu did not accept
personal responsibility for the crimes or the consequences thereof. She explained
that denial is a cognitive distortion of a faulty thinking pattern to manipulate a
person’s thought patterns in order to avoid taking responsibility for their behaviour.
This attitude permits errant behaviour to persist by denying that he harmed the
victims and thereby avoiding interventions. Cognitive distortions are dynamic risk
factors that reflect on the likelihood of an individual reoffending. The offender
remains at risk until he assumes full responsibility for the offence, acknowledges the
harm he has done to the victim, and seeks out ways of understanding and avoiding
the commission of future offences.

[11] As Buhlungu did not acknowledge that he committed the crimes, he show ed
no remorse towards the victims . He was embarrassed about what his family would
think of him being convicted for rape , rather than being remorseful. The expression
of remorse motivates change, and the lack thereof raises doubts about whether
Buhlungu would feel the need to change or be rehabilitated.

[12] A reasonable interpretation of Myburgh’s definition of insight is that it refers to
Buhlungu’s ability to recognise, understand, and take responsibility for his thoughts,
behaviours, or circumstances that led to him committing the crimes. It’s not just
about knowing what he did, but grasping the why of his actions, namely his
motivations, the impact on others, and how his worldview may have contributed to
his actions. When a person l ike Buhlungu lacks insight, he might minimise or deny
his role, blame others or external factors, fail to see patterns in his behaviour, and
struggle to empathise with his victims. The absence of reflection can be a red flag in
rehabilitation settings because it suggests a person may not yet be ready to change.

rehabilitation settings because it suggests a person may not yet be ready to change.
On the flip side, developing insight is often seen as a turning point , an essential step
on the path toward accountability and personal growth . Myburgh asserted that
Buhlungu lacked insight about the seriousness of the crimes he committed. A lack of
insight might be one of the best predictors of poor outcome, perhaps because it
engenders noncompliance with remediation interventions.

[13] Buhlungu’s sister reported to Myburgh that he grew up in an unstable
environment where he was often subjected to violence and severe physical abuse.
Myburgh suggested that empirical evidence links child abuse to later criminality ,
general and sexual violence. She qualified the latter by stating that not all children
from violent households become violent criminals.

[14] Buhlungu told her he began drinking alcohol at about ten years of age. H is
frequency of usage increased to the extent that he described his late teens and early
twenties as a period of perpetual drunkenness. He described his involvement as a
driver, whilst inebriated, in a high-speed motor vehicle accident in 2004 . Myburgh
associated substance abuse with a propensity for general and sexual violence.

[15] Myburgh spoke of Buhlungu’s relationship problems. He had more than two
girlfriends at a time. He lived alone, seeking their company when he desired sex. His
relationships did not endure beyond six months, primarily because the women found
out about his ot her relationships and his inclination for sex workers. He did not
appreciate their interrogatories about his other relationships. Myburgh stated that
offenders w ho could not sustain stable intimacy tend to reoffend more frequently .
Buhlungu could only name one friend, his alleged accomplice in the crimes. Of his
numerous siblings, he retains regular contact with just his older sister, who lives in
the Eastern Cape. He is the father of six daughters, but has limited contact with
them. During sentencing procedures, Counsel pointed out his two daughters and one
of the mothers who were present in the Court. During his testimony, Buhlungu
revealed that he has six daughters from different mothers. On an enquiry from the
Court as to why the attendees did not testify during the sentencing proceedings, the
Court was informed that it was a calculated decision not to call them. Myburgh stated

Court was informed that it was a calculated decision not to call them. Myburgh stated
that a good social support network may obviate the tendency to criminality , but the
converse was true as w ell. She then addressed recidivism among serial sexual
offenders. Rehabilitation among sexual offenders yields extremely varied outcomes.
Recidivism rates are exceptionally high even after participation in specialised
programmes presented by professionals. There are no rehabilitation programmes for
serial rapists. The aetiological factors that create serial rapists are inconclusive, thus
militating against effective interventions. If a serial rapist remains sexually active, he
is at risk for reoffending.

[16] The factors that may decrease Buhlungu’s risk for reoffending include the
absence of a major mental disorder, absence of drug and illicit substance usage,
physical health and employment. The Court notes that Buhlungu testified during the
trial that he suffered from multiple drug -resistant tuberculosis and wore a mask for
most of his court appearances. He indicated then that he had been cured of his
tuberculosis and was not receiving any treatment. He had taught himself motor
mechanics from observing other mechanics at an early age.

[17] Myburgh concluded that it was unlikely Buhlungu would benefit from any
programmes or interventions that might be available to h im. Buhlungu posed a
significant risk for reoffending , has a poor prognosis and will probably remain a
danger to society. She considered correctional supervision, the imposition of a fine
or a suspended sentence, a nd found none to be suitable. She considered a lengthy
period of imprisonment to be the appropriate sentence. The Court accepts these
opinions as useful recommendations without relinquishing its obligations in
sentencing.

[18] The Court enquired whether Myburgh had done a psychological assessment
of Buhlungu. The expert stated that it was beyond her expertise , even though she
had psychology qualifications. The Court conveyed its impressions about Buhlungu’s
cognitive capacity , gleaned whilst observing him and his interactions with his
Counsel as well as during his testimony at the trial. Myburgh agreed that Buhlungu
impressed her as an intelligent person. He did not benefit from an upbringing with his
biological parents. His primary caregivers were adoptive parents. Under cross -
examination, Myburgh conceded that Buhlungu ’s level of intell ectual functioning
might predispose him to benefit from therapy and the interventions she
recommended. She was asked whether his abuse of alcohol from a young age could
have a direct bearing on his criminality. Myburgh was inclined to agree with the

have a direct bearing on his criminality. Myburgh was inclined to agree with the
proposition as she was , about the abuse and violence Buhlungu suffered . She did
not elicit any history of childhood sexual violence inflicted on Buhlungu. She was
challenged on her testimony that serial rapists reoffend. Myburgh conceded this
proposition as well, but qualified her answer by stating that Buhlungu has a long road
ahead. He must acknowledge that he has perpetrated these crimes . He has to

develop insight and display remorse. It would not be easy, but the possibility was
there. He might respond to rehabilitation, but the risk of recidivism loomed high. She
agreed that the Court should consider Buhlungu’s childhood history of abuse as a
mitigating factor. However, if Buhlungu did not see himself as a rapist, rehabilitation
would not help him. The appropriate psychological interventions may help Buhlungu,
but it would depend on his receptiveness to rehabilitation. Myburgh testified that if
the appropriate psychological interventions were unavailable, then there would at
least be the opportunity for Buhlungu to interact with social workers and non -
governmental organisations.

[19] Myburgh testified that Buhlungu displayed some emotion during the interview.
He cried a little towards the end because he was not guilty and could not prove his
case. He said he has remorse, but never declared any remorse or empathy towards
the victims. She did get the impression that Buhlungu at tempted to manipulate her
during the interview, more about his innocence than any regard for the victims.

[20] Myburgh responded negatively to Buhlungu’s repeated assertions during the
trial that he respected women. He told her that if a female drinks with him, she must
be available to sleep with him. He hoped to meet his victims one day so that he
could tell them they were wrong.

[21] Myburgh was asked about the impact that the offences would have had on the
victims. She stated that they would suffer chronically and impact those around them.
Each of them required immediate psychological interventions.

[22] Myburgh recommended that Buhlungu should participate in any available
treatment programmes and group sessions offered by the Department of
Correctional Services or another relevant authority. He should attend regular
psychotherapy with a Clinical Psycholog ist to explore further issues about his

psychotherapy with a Clinical Psycholog ist to explore further issues about his
childhood, alcohol abuse, and subsequent behavioural problems. He is allowed to
receive further training in vehicle mechanics, so that he will be able to make a living
should he be released from prison. The Court enquired whether the Department of
Correctional Services would pay heed to her report and whether they could provide
the interventions and training she recommended . Myburgh stated that it depended

on the prison where Buhlungu would be incarcerated. There are two psychologists
attached to her unit in Pretoria, but they contend with a heavy w orkload. Her report
will be included in the documents accompanying Buhlungu. She did recommend that
the Court include these interventions in the order it makes.

[23] Buhlungu’s Counsel was asked to distil his argument on the number of counts
of rape that his Client was convicted for. Each of the six attracted the minimum
sentence of life imprisonment. He was asked to identify the substantial and
compelling factors that would permit a Court to deviate from the prescribed minimum
sentence. It was submitted that the Court should consider Buhlungu’s circumstances
cumulatively. They were the frequent instances of physical abuse he suffered as a
child, his socio-economic circumstances, he was a first offender for these types of
offences, he had developed a work ethic and had an innate ability to look after
himself. He had spent four and a half years in prison awaiting trial. He learnt to repair
cars by observing others. Buhlungu’s Counsel pleaded that his Client should at least
be given the hope that he could be released from prison sometime in the future.

[24] The State argued that Buhlungu’s previous conviction for theft disqualified him
as being a first offender. The chilling aspect of Myburgh’s testimony was that
Buhlungu wanted to meet with his victims to inform them that they were wrong and
he never raped them. He was a serial rapist and deserved t o receive the minimum
prescribed sentence.

EVALUATION

[25] The judgment has thus far focused on Buhlungu, who had been convicted on
fourteen of the twenty charges preferred against him. That is untenable in sentencing
proceedings, for sentencing is a balancing act between the aggravating factors
placed on one end of a scale and the mitigating factors on the other. The more the
scale tips towards the aggravating factors, the harsher the sentence should be, or

scale tips towards the aggravating factors, the harsher the sentence should be, or
the lesser should be the inclination to devi ate from a prescribed minimum sentence.
The more the scale tips toward the mitigating factors, the milder a sentence should
be, or the greater the inclination to interfere and deviate from a prescribed minimum
sentence. Where the analysis leaves the scale equipoised, the Court should exercise

its discretion and impose a sentence that considers the quartet of factors of the
crime, the c onvicted person, the community, and the consequences for the victim s,
with the requisite mercy the peculiar circumstances re quire. Where a minimum
sentence applies, it should be imposed.2

[26] In balancing a sentence, t he constitutional imperative demands that the
impact of crime on the victim s is not brushed off lightly in the sentencing regime. 3 A
Court in this division recentl y asked whether the time is not ripe to replace the triad 4
With a quartet of factors: the crime, the criminal, the community, and the
consequences, the latter being the consequences for the victim, both directly and
indirectly. As an aide-memoire, the four Cs are those that a Court must consider and
apply in unison without emphasising one over the other.5

[27] What would be the object of elevating the consequences for the victim on par
with the traditional triad of factors? There are mul tiple reasons why a quartet of
factors should replace the triad. Courts have , for some time, considered the impact
of crime on the victims . Victim Impact statements are almost routinely considered in
sentencing proceedings , and counselling is offered to ma ny victims of crime ,
especially victims of rape by the National Prosecuting Authority. Neither materialised
in this case, largely due to factors beyond the State Advocate's control. The Court
acknowledges the effort she made and will continue to make to assist the victims of
the crimes committed against them by Buhlungu. Courts and society have agitated
for the elevation of the plight of victims to place the consequences of crime on them
on par with the triad of factors. 6 The latter is neither new nor novel . The
consideration of the consequences for the victims of crime is essential to analyse the
complete ambit of substantial and compelling factors in cases that warrant the
imposition of a prescribed minimum sentence regime.7

imposition of a prescribed minimum sentence regime.7

2 C.W v S (Appeal) (A301/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 198 (13 May 2025), at para 34
3 S v Isaacs 2002 (1) SACR 176 (C) at 178 B-C, suggested that the triad is incomplete because
it leaves the victim out of the equation.
4 S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A), at 540G
5 C.W v S supra, at para 39
6 C.W v S supra at para 39
7 Van der Merwe & Mitch ell ‘The use of impact statements, minimum sentences and
victims’privacy interests: a therapeutic exploration’ 2020 De Jure Law Journal 1 -18
http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2225-7160/2020/v53a. In 2 010, VIS was statutorily introduced in cases

[28] The purpose of formalising the consequences to the victim as a factor that a
sentencing Court should consider is multifold. It would emphasise the principle of
restorative justice and the need for sentencing to reflect the full impact of the crime
and incorporate the victim’s voice in the sentencing process. It would recognise the
spectrum of harm a crime causes, including the physical, psychological, social, and
financial consequences the victim suffers. It engenders public confidence and
reinforces public trust in the justice system.8

[29] The crimes that Buhlungu has been convicted of are rampant in a country
battling to keep afloat under the weight of criminality. South Africa is descending .
Our uncontrolled descent into the abyss has received global exposure, and pleas for
technological assistance have been openly sought from other countries . The
communities, particularly the informal ones , as this case has once again exposed,
are the hardest hit and are reeling from the level of lawlessness that has woven its
clutches into the fabric of everyday existence . The factors of the crime and the
community militate against leniency in sentencing.

[30] The victims affected in this case , regrettably, did not get the exposure they
deserved in the sentencing procedure. The Court is satisfied , though, that they were
allowed to tell their stories in a protected envir onment, to face their assailant without
fear, and to gain some closure for the trauma and scars, both physical and mental,
that they and their closest ones have endured for years. The Court alluded to the
magnitude of their distress in its judgment on conv iction, which is best captured in
the quotation that follows. The State Advocate opened her written argument with a
profound paragraph which deserves repetition. She stated:

‘A life sentence. That is what each of the Complainants received on the
respective dates when these atrocious crimes were committed against them. It is

respective dates when these atrocious crimes were committed against them. It is
clear from the evidence of these brave women that the harrowing, degrading and

involving child offenders. The Service Charter for Victims of Crime in South Africa (2007) also
highlights the victim’s right to provide information to the sentencing court.
8 Guide to Victim Impact Statements, Child Witness Institute,
https://lawlibrary.org.za/akn/za/doc/guide/2022-11-16/guide-to-victim-impact-statements/eng@2022-
11-16

traumatic experiences they were forced to endure at the hands of the accused
had a profound , adverse emotional effect on all of them . The 2014 incidents
happened 11 years ago, whilst the 2018 incidents happened 7 years ago, yet the
complainants are still plagued with nightmares. According to A […] M[…], she and
her children are being ridiculed by the community . The trauma that they all
suffered at the hands of the accused was tangible as they were forced to relive
the incidents when they testified. They teared up and cried during the trial as they
faced their rapist. The proceedings were often interrupted to accommodate the
complainants in that regard. Their bravery should be commended as this leads
not only to the conviction of a serial rapist, but al so to protecting the community
and women, in particular, from the spree of destruction by the accused.’

[31] The Court then turns to consider the four purposes of sentencing, namely
retribution, prevention, rehabilitation and deterrence.9 The four purposes of
sentencing guide a Court in determining an appropriate sentence. The principles
underlying retribution, prevention, and deterrence preclude leniency in this case.
Serious crimes usually require retribution and deterrence to be effective, and
rehabilitation of the offender consequently plays a relatively smaller role. 10 Buhlungu
has committed serious offences , and he shows no remorse for his actions . His
attitudes towards women derive from a distant past that has no place in a society
founded on the principles of freedom, equality, and human dignity. He chose not to
testify in mitigation of sentence, relying rather on the content of Myburgh’s report and
testing her evidence to tap the Court’s leniency. That was regrettably misconceived.
The latter approach does not mean that the Court will abandon any opportunity or
effort to rehabilitate him , pointless and irrational as the enormity of the task may
seem.

seem.

[32] Courts assess whether rehabilitation is appropriate based on the offender’s
willingness to participate, his risk profile, and the nature of the crime. Not every
sentenced person must undergo rehabilitation while in prison. If this Court
considered deviating from the prescribed minimum sentence, it would have had to at
least enquire into whether the Appellant could be rehabilitated and whether the

9 S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A)
10 S v Swart, 2004, vol 2, SACR, page 370, SCA at para 12

prison authorities could provide goal -specific rehabilitation to sexual offenders and
serial rapists. A deviation from the minimum sentence contemplates an early release
of an offender back into the community. A Court has to ensure, to the extent that it
can, and from the guidance provided by the necessary experts, including a
criminologist, social worker and psycho logist, that an offender would not re -offend
when reintegrated into society. The Court has to be informed about the nature of the
interventions in place to rehabilitate sexual offenders. 11 A Psychologist would have
had to evaluate the Appellant’s psycholog ical profile, recidivism risk, and his
amenability to potential treatment.

[33] Lieutenant-Colonel Myburgh’s testimony proved invaluable in determining
whether Buhlungu is amenable to rehabilitation. Her overall opinion was that the risk
factors of his reoffending were high, and his profile and propensity to receive
effective therapy were low. This is not to say that the Court will abandon Buhlungu.
As Myburgh testified, rehabilitation depends upon him. He has to undergo a mindset
change under the guidance of the appropriate specialists. As a gesture of the Court’s
mercy, it shall craft an order along the lines recommended by Myburgh to assist the
process.12

[34] The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made on behalf of
Buhlungu and the State. The conundrum in this matter is that Buhlungu’s convictions
attract six life sentences for multiple rapes. The Court has considered that Buhlungu
has been incarcerated for over four years, his harsh upbringing in an adopted family,
his exposure to violence, and his circumvented education. The Court has considered
that he has taken care of himself by learning about vehicle mechanics and securing
work as a freelance driver. He seems to have made an effort to be a productive and
respected member of society , as Ms Xhosana had believed him to be . Yet his dark

respected member of society , as Ms Xhosana had believed him to be . Yet his dark
side and primitive views about women and propensity to resort to crime overshadow
these factors . Cumulatively, the factors identified are neither substantial nor
compelling, or substantial and compelling to warrant a deviation from the minimum
sentence regime where the respective charge requires it to be imposed. The Court

11 The type of interventions associated with the rehabilitation of sexual offenders include
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Risk -need Responsivity model, Recidivism Reduction, Multisystemic
Therapy and Community Reintegration
12 S v Holder 1979 (2) SA, S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A)

considers that a long period of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence in the
circumstances. On count 22, the possession of a firea rm, the Court considers the
imposition of a five-year sentence to be appropriate.

ORDER

In the circumstances, the Court makes the following order that is to be read in
conjunction with the amended indictment:

1. Count 6: Kidnapping of N […] M[…] on the night of 11 July 2014 : 5 years
imprisonment,
2. Count 7: Kidnapping of A […] M[…] on the night of 11 July 2014: 5 years
imprisonment,
3. Count 9: Sexual intercourse with A […] M[…] on the night of 11 July 2014
without her consent: Life in Imprisonment
4. Count 10: Sexual intercourse with N […] M[…] on the night of 11 July 2014
without her consent and acting with common purpose: Life in Imprisonment
5. Count 14: Sexual intercourse with N[…] M[…] by an unknown suspect on the
night of 11 July 2014 , without her consent and acting with common purpose :
Life in Imprisonment.
6. Count 20: Kidnapping of S […] B[…] on the night of 12 May 2018: 5 years
imprisonment.
7. Count 21: Kidnapping of M […] T[…] on the night of 12 May 2018: 5 years
imprisonment
8. Count 22: Possession of a firearm on the night of 12 May 2018: 5 years
imprisonment
9. Count 23: Assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm to S[…] B[…] on the
night of 12 May 2018: 5 years imprisonment
10. Count 24: Assault with intention to do grievous bodily harm to M […] T[…] on
the night of 12 May 2018: 5 years imprisonment
11. Count 25: Robbery with aggravating circumstances relating to M […] T[…] on
the night of 12 May 2018: 15 years imprisonment

12. Count 26: Sexual intercourse with T […] and with a common purpose with an
unknown assailant on the night of 12 May 2018 without her consent: Life
Imprisonment
13. Count 27: Sexual intercourse with S […] B[…] without her consent: Life
Imprisonment
14. Count 28: Sexual intercourse with M […] T[…] on the night of 12 May 2018
and without her consent: Life Imprisonment
15. As a sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed, the other sentences
automatically run concurrently,
16. In terms of section 103(1) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 , Mr
Buhlungu is declared unfit to possess a firearm, and the Registrar of Firearms
is to be notified accordingly.
17. The Department of Correctional Services,
a. shall submit Mr Buhlungu to a psychological evaluation within six
months of this order , and for him to attend any follow-up to determine
whether he will benefit from any psychological intervention available to
the department for his sexual behaviour , and if so, then to implement
that intervention.
b. Shall facilitate Mr Buhlungu’s further training in vehicle mechanics , if
that training is available at the venue of his incarceration.


___________________
BHOOPCHAND AJ
Acting judge
High Court
Western Cape Division


Judgment was handed down on 18 June 2025

Prosecutor: Advocate E Erasmus
Instructed by the DPP
Accused’s Counsel: I M Sebueng

Instructed by Legal Aid