One of the reports being used to back claims of child abuse against North West Premier Popo Molefe recommended that he be kept away from the child pending the findings of the court.
The report, by the Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children after it conducted a medical examination and ”forensic assessment” on the child, suggested that it would be ”in the child’s interest not to make any contact with Molefe until the finding of the court”.
The findings of the medical examination on the child, the report said, were ”consistent with sexual abuse”.
The Mail & Guardian understands that Molefe requested and was given the report by the clinic last Friday.
The police investigated the child’s allegations last year, but prosecuting authorities declined to prosecute for ”lack of sufficient evidence”.
The report came after the prosecuting authorities had dropped the case.
According to the report, which said that the child’s story was consistent, the child had expressed her willingness ”to be reconciled with Molefe as long as he does not hurt her again”.
The child had initially alleged that Molefe’s domestic worker molested her.
A police-commissioned medical report, which was done after the child’s allegation, found that her hymen was not intact and that a foreign object had been inserted into her vagina.
Two subsequent medical reports, commissioned by the police allegedly after Molefe rejected the first one, contradicted each other. Although one concurred with the first report in saying that the child’s hymen was not intact, the other said the child’s hymen was intact.
Molefe’s domestic worker, Johanna Leboa, initially accused of inserting her finger in the girl’s vagina, died last June after a short illness. Molefe has denied the allegations against him.
He rejected the Teddy Bear Clinic report as ”false”, claiming that staff at the clinic had allowed themselves to be ”used to publish false allegations”.
The report says the child was referred to the clinic by prominent doctor Precious Moloi from the Women’s Clinic.
The report said two clinical interviews were conducted in order to obtain a forensic assessment of the child. The assessment was based on ”the therapist’s observations and clinical findings”.
The report also said: ”The child has had a medical examination at the Teddy Bear Clinic, the findings of which are consistent with sexual abuse.”
Molefe said he will believe the contents of the clinic’s report only once it has been tested in court.
North West provincial director of public prosecutions Sello Maema said on Friday the police investigation against Molefe would be reopened on the basis of new information, specifically a therapist’s report.
The prosecuting authorities would decide whether to prosecute Molefe after studying the new information. Molefe told a daily newspaper this week that he would not resign, but would take special leave if the prosecuting authorities decided to take the matter to court.
He, however, said he welcomed the case being reopened so that he could prove his innocence ”once and for all”. He told a Sunday newspaper that he was popular with women, and would never ”stoop so low as to sexually abuse a pre-teen child”.
”Women adore me, so why would I go for a child,” he said. Molefe told Radio 702 that he already has a new woman in his life and would like to marry her. Molefe and his ex-wife Boitumelo Plaatje-Molefe signed their divorce papers last month. They separated in April last year.
According to Molefe, in the second paragraph of the report the therapist had said it appeared the child was under ”tremendous pressure to say certain things”.
The paragraph reads: ”The child appeared to be quite anxious and ashamed and her verbal responses were incongruent with her emotional responses. She displayed blunting.
It seems that she is under pressure anxiety around this.”
A clinical psychologist explained that the term ”blunting” referred to contradictions between verbal and emotional responses.
The report added that ”the child’s memory was very clear and coherent and was able to provide great detail, also a common characteristic in children who have been abused and who are very traumatised by this”.
Referring to the child’s mental capacity, the report said ”the child did not display an impairment of reality. She was able to distinguish between truth vs lies and fact vs fantasy.”
It added that the ”child does not have the mental capacity to be devious and has not displayed any reason to lie”.
Molefe said that, according to the report, when the child was asked why she was at the clinic, she had immediately responded that she was there to talk about what had happened to her and what Molefe had done to her.
The relevant part of the report reads: ”The therapist questioned the child if she knew the reason for her visit to the therapist and the child responded immediately and stated that ‘to tell you what happened to me and the things [Molefe] did to me’.”
It continues: ”The therapist asked the [child] to identify her body parts and its functions and she cooperated keenly. The therapist started with the non-sexualised body parts so as not to overwhelm the child or lead the child in any way.
”The therapist also explored the possibility if the child had seen or touched or been touched by anyone and it was at this point that she disclosed that Molefe raped her and then pointed to her vagina.”
The report quotes the child as having said: ”I told Molefe to stop, but he did not listen to me.”
The therapist, according to the report, then asked the child to tell her ”everything” that happened to her ”to increase the ring of veracity”.
The child told the therapist that Molefe had raped her once during the night in his bedroom while Plaatje-Molefe was attending a meeting. She claimed that she went to sleep with him because she feared to sleep alone after watching horror movies.
”The child also expressed shame around what happened and stated that she felt bad about what happened. This a common symptom manifested by child victims of sexual abuse referred to as the ‘damaged goods syndrome’.
”The child also clearly demonstrated with the use of anatomically correct drawings and anatomically correct dolls how Molefe had raped her. While these tools may be considered leading evidence it was only used after the child made the disclosure so as to clarify, describe and demonstrate what had happened to her. The child’s story remained consistent throughout the sessions.”