Three non-governmental organisations have applied to give expert evidence in the Jacob Zuma rape trial in the Johannesburg High Court. This would include the reasons, known by people working with rape survivors, why they often did not take the first opportunity to make known the assault and to seek help, Peter Hodes SC told the court on Monday.
Hodes was presenting an application by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, the Centre for Applied Legal Studies and the Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre, appearing as amici curiae, or friends of the court.
Tshwaranang conducts research and engages in advocacy, training and capacity-building to promote and protect women’s rights in South Africa.
If the application is granted, testimony will be given by Joan van Niekerk, the national director of Childline, and Sheila Meintjies, a professor of political studies at the University of the Witwatersrand.
They intend testifying about the psycho-social context of gender-based violence generally, and specifically rape and sexual coercion. They also plan to give evidence on the specific effect of childhood sexual abuse on the psyche of an adult and the likelihood of re-victimisation, in particular, by means of being subjected to sexual assault as an adult.
The complainant has testified that she was raped at the ages of five, 13 and 14.
In their evidence, Van Niekerk and Meintjies want to evaluate whether the complainant consented to sex in the context of coercive circumstances brought about by power imbalance inherent in the relationship between her and Zuma.
They also hope to tell the court of the stereotypes and myths operating to the detriment of complainants in sexual-offence trials.
The 31-year-old HIV-positive complainant alleged she was raped by Zuma at his Johannesburg home on November 2 last year.
Zuma has insisted she consented to sex. She reported the matter to the police on the afternoon of the following day.
Both the state’s lawyer, Charin de Beer, and Zuma’s lawyer, Kemp J Kemp, are opposing the application.
Hodes told Judge Willem van der Merwe that when contacting the complainant about the application, she said in an initial SMS she did not oppose it. However, on Sunday an SMS from an intermediary said she was opposed to the application, the court heard.
Poster row outside Zuma trial
Meanwhile, a row was brewing over picketing rights outside Zuma’s trial on Monday.
The One-in-Nine Campaign, which has been picketing for women’s rights since the start of the trial, was ordered to remove posters reading: ”Jacob Zuma Sexual Predator??”
They raised their voices in the old struggle song ”Senzeni Na” (What have we done?), lit a candle and a small pile of herbs as they huddled in a group and wrote ”censored” over Zuma’s name on their placards.
They replaced the offending placards with posters reading: ”Reporting Rape = Being Raped Again in Court.”
A riot police officer said that ”in terms of the Gatherings Act”, posters at a picket may not bear a person’s name.
The police officer could not explain why a protester in the pro-Zuma camp was allowed to carry a crucifix reading: ”Stop Crucifying Zuma”.
”I cannot conceive the basis for that prohibition,” University of the Witwatersrand law school head, Professor David Unterhalter, said.
”Freedom of expression would ordinarily allow people to make the point of whom they are drawing attention to,” he said.
Meanwhile, an inyanga (traditional healer) carrying a Bible paced in front of a row of riot police officers posted next to the Zuma supporters, hurling insults at the police from time to time.
On the eastern side of the court, another small protest was started by women who stood silently, bearing the posters: ”Innocent Until Found Otherwise” and ”Stop Abusing Our Rights”.
Asked who they represented, they stamped their feet and simultaneously whispered: ”Shshsh.” One at the back of the group, said: ”No comment.” — Sapa