Authored By: Angela Okeke
University of the Western Cape
Case: State v Timothy Omotoso and Others [2025] ZAECQBHC 8
Court: Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Gqeberha
Judge: Shoeman J
Date: 2 April 2025
State (Prosecution): Represented by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)
Accused:
- Timothy Omotoso – Televangelist and leader of Jesus Dominion International (JDI)
- Lusanda Sulani – Co-accused, church employee
- Zukiswa Sitho – Co-accused, church employee
Facts of the Case
The accused were initially charged with 97 offences which later reduced to 63 and then 32, including rape, sexual assault, human trafficking and racketeering. Omotoso was accused of grooming and abusing young girls and minors under the pretext of church mentorship. The abuse allegedly happened in church “mission houses” in Durban and elsewhere. Cheryl Zondi, a former church member was the first witness back in 2018 and gave a detailed layout of the abuse she allegedly endured from the age of 14 years old. The trial continued for several years with delays and retrials.
Issues raised
Whether the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the testimony of witnesses like Cheryl Zondi and others was credible and sufficient to convict.
Whether the prosecution fulfilled its duty in testing the defence evidence.
Whether the accused’s rights to a fair trial were compromised by delays.
Arguments of the Parties
Prosecution
The prosecution argued that Omotoso used his spiritual authority to manipulate and abuse young women. They cited multiple witness testimonies detailing abuse, restricted movement, and psychological coercion. Argued that the co-accused facilitated the trafficking and concealment of these acts.
Defence
Challenged the credibility and inconsistencies of the testimonies of the witnesses. The defence claimed that the accusations were fabricated. In addition, the charges were vague and improperly framed and that the pre-trial media attention prejudiced the accused.
Judgement
All accused were acquitted on all charges. The court found the State had not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The witnesses’ testimony was found insufficiently tested by the prosecution, and inconsistencies were not clarified. The accused were discharged and set free.
Ratio Decidendi
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the State’s duty to meet the high standard of proof required in criminal matters. Judge Schoeman criticized the prosecution’s failure to adequately cross-examine the defence witnesses. The court found that there were serious procedural deficiencies in the way evidence was presented and tested. Legal principle: A verdict must be based on tested, reliable evidence, especially in serious criminal charges involving sexual offences.
Observations
The judgment led to public outrage, especially among gender-based violence activists and women’s rights groups. The case highlighted systemic issues within the NPA and the justice system’s ability to deal with GBV cases. The Minister of Justice ordered a review into prosecutorial conduct. The acquittal is seen by many as a setback in the fight against sexual violence, despite reaffirming legal safeguards for fair trial and due process.
