Two landmark Bills meant to give women an unfettered legal recourse to justice and bring about gender equality came before the National Assembly yesterday. The Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill seeks to do away with the 20-year prescription of the prosecution of sexual offences other than rape, while the Customary Marriage Amendment Bill seeks to afford women in customary marriages property rights.
These Bills were brought back to Parliament for amendments after they were deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.
Introducing the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill, Adv Hisamodien Mohamed said the committee on Justice and Correctional Services has amended section 7.1 of the Act which prescribed the tenure of prosecution to 20 years because it did not comply with the Bill of Rights as prescribed by the Constitution. This would now ensure that all sexual offences will be subjected to horizontal consideration without regard to when they were committed.
This section was harmful to the victims of sexual offences because “the effects of sexual violence have deep-seated physiological and psychological trauma not bound by time. In some instances, these effects affect the victims for the rest of their lives,” said Mr Werner Horn.
According to him, the only solution to gender-based violence is the institution of “stricter laws and tougher sentences”.
He further decried the absence of the Steering Committee on gender-based violence as promised by the President, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa. He urged that it must be set up immediately to provide relief to victims of this scourge.
The need to deal with the material manifestation of this scourge is long overdue, said Mr Mbuyiseni Ndlozi. He asked: “But what good will such laws serve if a grown-up man who goes to a police station today to report a case of rape that happened when he was still a boy is laughed at and ridiculed by the police?
“What good would such laws serve if young boys are still raped in prison under the stewardship of the state. What is the state doing to investigate such acts and held those responsible accountable and ensure they are prosecuted?”
The state should be held accountable for all these sexual offences atrocities, he recommended.
The NGOs are yet to receive the R50 million set aside by government to fight gender-based violence, contested Ms Liezl van der Merwe. “The government needs to invest more to curb this scourge than it spends for the upkeep of sexual offenders. “The government spends R350 a day for the upkeep of sexual offenders and R50 for women and children of gender-based violence. That is unacceptable. The government needs to move away from rhetoric and fortify its fight against gender-based violence.”
The gender-based violence epidemic is reflective of the inadequacies of our justice system that needs to be proactive than reactive to safeguard the rights and dignity of women and children, Mr Frederik Mulder pointed out.
The rationale in supporting this Bill is that it seeks to remedy the psychological effects gender-based violence has on victims of sexual abuse. Before this amendment, many would have kept their ordeal as a secret, and would have led their lives in shame without any recourse to justice,” claimed Mr Steven Swart.
The only lasting recourse to this scourge is not the promulgation of laws, but the determination to get to the root causes of these abuses, contested Mr Ahmed Shaik-Emam. “As long as we are beset with grave socio-economic challenges, the victims of sexual offences will always be at the mercy of offenders.”
This amendment must not be seen as a thunder without lightning, commented Mr Ganief Hendricks. “Justice to victims of sexual offences will only be realised only when these Bills bring lightning to the offenders.”
The struggle for gender equality continues, that is the view of Ms Susan Newhoudt. “The amendment of this Bill is a realisation that we live in a dangerous society in which women are still objectified. Before this amendment, many women were excluded from exercising their recourse to justice. Now women will not die quietly and have no recourse to disclose injustices perpetrated on them,” she claimed.
“The deprivation of women’s right to property by the Customary Marriage Amendment Bill discriminated against them and this amendment seeks to remedy that,” said Adv Mohamed.
But concerns about the absence of the definitions of forms of ownership and properties remain, he said. “During public hearings concerns were raised about the absence of the definitions of properties and ownership.”
“This amendment will ensure that women are not discriminated against based on either gender, ethnicity or race,” said Ms Glynnis Breytenbach.
In the pre-1994 era, women were regarded as minors and had no right to property and this prejudiced them,” claimed Mr Ndlozi.
“The Constitutional Court judgement on this has restored the property rights of women in customary marriages. Before this amendment, this law treated women as subservient beings and that is why women would hesitate to divorce their men irrespective of their treatment because they would be left with nothing if they decided to do so,” he said.
“This amendment shows that South Africa is a plural society protected by law and women are not excluded from the privileges of our Constitution,” said Mr Nared Singh.
“It was significant for our government to give recognition to customary marriages which have been there since antiquity. They gave us a sense of pride and dignity. They have served their purpose,” said Mr Richard Dyantyi.
We also cherished the Customary Act of 1998, but it was not without its own limitations of unfair discrimination. This Bill seeks to address that,” he said.
“Historically, the Bill reflects the aspirations of women who drew up the Women’s Charter. This is a symbolic victory to their tireless endeavours,” he proclaimed.
The Bills will now be sent to the National Council of Provinces for concurrence.
By Abel Mputing
Arrange a tour