High Court Overturns Conviction After False Rape Claim by Ex-Wife

A man who spent years behind bars for allegedly raping his former wife has been released after the North West High Court ruled that he was wrongly convicted. The decision has sparked conversations about the justice system, false accusations, and the delicate balance between believing survivors and ensuring fair trials.

A Marriage Already in Pieces

The man, identified only as PS was convicted in the Regional Court in Potchefstroom on charges of rape, kidnapping and intimidation. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison. At the time of the alleged incident, the couple was still legally married but living separately at their family homes.

According to court records, the former wife invited him to a traditional celebration at her homestead. After the gathering, she asked him to drive some guests home in her vehicle and accompanied him on the last drop-off. It was during that final trip that PS tried to talk about fixing their marriage. She rejected the idea and allegedly told him she had moved on with someone else.

What happened next was at the heart of the original conviction, but it didn’t hold up under appeal.

Conviction Built on a Single Account

After going home the following day, the woman reported to her mother that she was kidnapped and raped. They went to the police, and a medical examination followed. The nurse who examined her found no visible injuries, no bleeding and no signs of physical restraint, only a vaginal discharge.

Despite the lack of physical evidence, the magistrate accepted her version and expressed confidence in her honesty, saying she had no motive to lie.

But that’s where the cracks started to show.

Ignored Evidence and Contradictions

During the initial trial, PS’s sister testified that she had discovered a message on the complainant’s phone in which the woman allegedly indicated her intention to open a false case. The court dismissed this evidence, suggesting the sister was biased because of family ties and personal dislike of the ex-wife.

On appeal, Judge Ronald Hendricks took a closer look and what he found deeply undermined the original ruling.

He cited inconsistencies between the woman and her mother’s testimonies. For instance, the mother claimed she saw blood on her daughter’s underwear. But the complainant never mentioned blood when first reporting the incident, and the medical exam confirmed none was present.

The trial magistrate brushed it off as a possible “mistake” by the mother but still relied on her as a credible witness.

Claims of Force Didn’t Add Up

Another red flag surfaced around her claim that she had been gagged and tied up repeatedly with torn cloth. Judge Hendricks noted that she never mentioned this crucial detail earlier, and the post-assault medical report, the J88 showed no injuries one would expect from binding around wrists or ankles.

The judge also questioned how she failed to escape or raise the alarm, especially when there were apparent opportunities.

When weighing all the evidence, he found that PS’s version, that the sex was consensual was the more probable and consistent account.

Final Ruling: Conviction Set Aside

Judge Hendricks ruled that the State failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He made special reference to the message indicating a possible plan to falsely accuse PS, as well as contradictions in the woman’s testimony and the absence of corroborating medical evidence.

He ordered PS’s immediate release, ending a prison sentence that should never have stood.

Public Reactions and Wider Debate

While the case hasn’t yet fully caught fire online, discussions in legal circles and on social platforms are already emerging around several key themes:

• Impact on genuine GBV cases: Some fear cases like this could fuel misconceptions that false reporting is common (statistics show it is rare).

• Damage to the wrongly accused: Others point to the irreversible harm caused when courts fail to interrogate evidence properly.

• Pressure on magistrates: The ruling highlights how emotive cases, especially involving intimate partners, require stricter scrutiny.

There’s also rising concern about how trial courts treat evidence from related witnesses and whether gender-based violence cases are being handled with both empathy and fairness.

A Cautionary Moment for the Justice System

South Africa continues to fight high levels of gender-based violence. False accusations are not the norm, but when they do surface, they threaten both the credibility of real survivors and the rights of the accused.

This case is a reminder that justice demands evidence, not assumptions and that lives can be destroyed when that principle is ignored.

If this needs to be turned into a shorter news brief or opinion piece, just say the word!

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com