AFRIFORUM ACTION AGAINST FALSE ACCUSATIONS BY MBALULA, MALEMA AND CO ON THE WAY

By Barry Bateman
Communications Manager: Private Prosecuting Unit AfriForum

NPA confirms there was insufficient evidence in Bergview case

AfriForum action against false accusations by Mbalula, Malema and co on the way

AfriForum’s Private Prosecution Unit welcomes the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) confirmation earlier today that there was insufficient evidence of rape or sexual assault of a minor girl from Bergview College in Matatiele in the Eastern Cape to support a successful prosecution.

The unit emphasises that this finding confirms the accounts of the school’s principal, Jaco Pieterse, as well as the school’s caretaker, Malume (pseudonym). Both men are clients of the unit.

Considering the latest developments in this case, the unit also reaffirms its commitment to ensure accountability for those individuals who falsely accused Pieterse and Malume of rape and will lay charges against Fikile Mbalula (Secretary-General of the ANC), Julius Malema (EFF leader), Fundile Gade (MEC of Education in the Eastern Cape) and others in the coming weeks.

Pieterse and Malume, as well as other staff who were on the school premises on 14 October last year, the day of the alleged rape, stated unequivocally that if the child had indeed been raped, it did not take place at the school.

Pieterse’s and the relevant staff’s version is documented in communications that were already passed on by the school to the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the child’s parents last year.

Barry Bateman, Spokesperson for the unit, has urged the NPA, SAPS, and other criminal justice system bodies to communicate this finding and its rationale to the family and the public in order to put an end to the ongoing false allegations against Pieterse and Malume.

“It is deeply concerning that it has now been confirmed that the SAPS and NPA were aware of the evidence, or lack thereof, in the case docket in November 2024.

This suggests that the subsequent collection of buccal samples constituted an abuse of process.”

Bateman says this sordid saga has exposed what appears to be the state’s weakness to external interference in investigations, when it should have been guided solely by the evidence in the docket.

“Our assessment of the facts worryingly suggests as the only reasonable inference that the authorities have allowed themselves to be intimidated by nameless and faceless keyboard warriors into investigating a case, despite there being no conclusive evidence of rape or sexual assault included in the docket after examination of the victim.

This led to innocent people to be convicted in the court of public opinion.

“Police detectives should be guided by evidence, not public opinion, because it is the evidence that must persuade a court of law and bring justice to victims of crime, not the irrelevant utterances of anonymous social media detectives.

If the authorities fail to provide a clear explanation of what happened, it may set a precedent in which an aggrieved party with the ability to rally social media supporters, politicians, and lobby groups can direct an investigation and identify the suspects.

This would clearly be an abuse of the criminal justice system and has provided an impetus to take action against politicians, social media detectives, and influencers who convicted our clients of rape,” concluded Bateman.