Authored By:Tsoseletso Confidence Mokgoatsane
University of South Africa
Abstract.
Crime rate in South Africa is increasing rapidly and this is because the criminal justice system is too lenient on offenders. Recidivism has increased drastically between year 2023-2025, the minister of correctional services reported that more than 18 000 parolees have committed crimes in the past three years.1
This article will focus on examining how the criminal justice of South Africa handles serious crimes, when it comes to how victims and offenders are treated by the law. It will also look into measures such bail, parole and concurrent sentence and how these measures affect the public trust in the criminal justice system. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is considered to be the supreme law of the land it appears to provide more rights for offenders than victims.
Introduction.
South Africa is the fifth country in the world with high crime rate.2 The safety of South Africans is compromised and not only that the economy will also suffer because no tourist would want to come to a country that has a high crime rate. Crime increases mainly because the justice system seems to favour offenders more than victims.
The victims of crime don’t even bother opening cases because they have lost hope, as the police officers and courts don’t take their complaints serious. The current measures used to rehabilitate offenders seems not be working for other offenders, just because one solution worked for a specific group of offenders doesn’t necessarily mean that it would work for other offenders.
Legal Framework
1.1. Legislation governing sentencing in South Africa.
In South Africa the following legislations govern the sentencing decisions in the country: the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa; Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Amendment Act 38 of 2007 and Case Law.
1.2. Challenges with the current Criminal Justice System Looking at the Constitution, it provides that everyone has a right to equality. Which means that offenders and victims have the right to equal protection and benefit of law.3 This provision expect someone whose rights have been violated to feel comfortable to say that, the justice system would do right by me although they would afford the offender the same protection as someone who’s vulnerable. As a South African, I have witnessed how the court treats the victims, starting from investigating officers to court personnel.
Victims don’t feel like they are treated fairly because the court prioritises the rights of the offender and the administration of justice and neglecting the victims.
1.2.1. Bail.
The presumption that innocent until proven guilty is something that disadvantages victims because most offenders end up being granted bail although there is a strong case against them. Example with what is currently happening with the case of Shepard and Mary Bushiri, they were granted bail after being accused on multiple crime charges. The both the offenders were accused of rape, violating bail conditions, Contraventions of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Service Act, Banking Act and many more. All these offences are very serious and the group that is suffering the most are the victims involved. In South Africa the court will not grant the accused with bail where one or more of the following grounds are present: where there is a likelihood that if released the accused will endanger the safety of the public or commit schedule 1 offence; there is a likelihood that if released the accused will attempt to evade his trial; there is a likelihood that if released the accused will attempt influence or intimidate witnesses or destroy evidence; there is a likelihood that if released the accused will undermine the objectives of the criminal justice including the bail system; if realized there is a likelihood that the accused will disturb the public order or undermine public peace.4
In this case we can clearly see how the court failed to bring justice to the victims in this case, firstly both the accused in this case are foreigners (Malawi nationals) and they had a lot of money and this obviously proves that there is a likelihood that they would escape the country and go to their home country where extradition will take long to be approved. South Africa did apply to extradite the accused but the extradition order was denied by Malawi. The group left to suffer is those that are affected by the negligence of our criminal justice system. The bail system only favours the offenders, although section 60(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 expects the court to consider the emotions of the victims, families and communities; in this case the court failed to do that instead it prioritised the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, section 9, section 33 and section 35 of the Constitution which supports offenders.
1.2.2 Parole.
Everyone who commits a crime must be punished and serve his time in incarceration. The reason why the community lost trust in the justice system is because offenders that have committed crime such a murder are still granted parole mainly because of the way they behave in prison, but who wouldn’t behave well while there is a reward for that behaviour? In the case of S v Mhlakaza & Another,5the court stated that the purpose of sentencing is to lead public opinion not to satisfy public opinion. The freedom charter of the country states that people shall govern but from the case stated above what people want comes second. Community expects the courts to punish serious crimes severely and not be given any mercy especially in a country where death penalty was abolished and has a high crime rate.
In the case of Vundisa v Kimberly Correctional supervision and parole,6the applicant in this case was released on parole on the 28th of September 2027 and was arrested again in January 2019 for breaking his parole conditions. He was released again on the 21st of January 2020 and while he was on parole he was alleged that he was involved in an armed robbery and got detained. In this case of Vundisa, the applicant was arrested and sentenced to 40 years and six months for various offences. Looking at this case, we can see that the correctional service is quick to release offenders although the offender is not yet ready to be released and rejoin the society. The justice system seems to be prioritising the release of the offender without thinking about the safety of the citizens.
1.2.3 Concurrent sentence.
South Africa is one of the countries that have a high rate of recidivism in the world.7In South Africa between 86%-94% of offenders tend to reoffend when they are released and this is because the system that is used to punish offenders doesn’t work for every offender. In the case of Alberton v S,8in 2007 the applicant was convicted for rape and kidnapping and was also convicted for being in possession of a firearm in 2012. He was released, between 2014-2020 the applicant committed 22 housebreaking. The applicant in this case was sentenced 35 years imprisonment for the offences that he had committed and it was reduced to 20 years imprisonment. The fact that the court saw it fit to reduce the sentence of the applicant although it is clear that he is not a safe person to be granted concurrent sentence, shows how the justice system is failing victims of crime.
Conclusion
The government of South Africa need to find other methods of rehabilitating offenders because the current one is not working, looking at the stats of crime in the country. The fact that victims are crying out loud about the unfairness of the justice system, the government should pay attention to them. Applying measures used in countries that have a very low crime rate is the only solution that can be adopted in order to save the country and ensure the safety of citizens.
Bibliography
Legislation
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
Criminal Procedure Act 51 0f 1977
Case law
Alberton v S (A72/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 162 (9 March 2023)
S v Mhlakaza & Another 1997(1) SACR 515 (SCA)
Vundisa v Kimberly Correctional Supervision and Parole (1969/2022) [2024] ZANCHC Journal article
Bertie Jacobs, ‘South Africa’s approach to reintegrating criminals and managing crime is a catastrophic failure’[2024] https://news.nwu.ac.za/south-africas-approach-reintegrating
criminals-and-managing-crime-catastrophic-failure accessed 30 December 2025.
Internet source
1 https://m.polity.org.za/article/thousands-of-criminals-reoffend-in-south-africa-better-data-would-show-where the-justice-system-is-failing-2025-11-27 (accessed 29/12/2025).
2 https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country (accessed 29/12/2025).
3 Section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
4 Section 60(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
5 1997 (1) SACR 515 (SCA).
6(1969/2022) [2024] ZANCHC 28 (28 March 2024)
7 Bertie Jacobs, ‘South Africa’s approach to reintegrating criminals and managing crime is a catastrophic failure’[2024] https://news.nwu.ac.za/south-africas-approach-reintegrating-criminals-and-managing-crime catastrophic-failure (accessed 30 December 2025).
8(A72/ 2022)[2023] ZAGPPHC 162 (9 March 2023).https://m.polity.org.za/article/thousands-of-criminals-reoffend-in-south-africa-better-data would-show-where-the-justice-system-is-failing-2025-11-27 (accessed 29/12/2025). https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country (accessed 29/12/2025).
