With the exception of victim LK (counts 5 and 6), who was abducted under false pretences, three girls; JC, CM and AC (mentioned in counts 1-4 and 6-8), all under the age of 16 at the time, were through misrepresentations made to them and their parents lured to South Africa by a certain ‘Aunt Juliet Chauke’  to visit family and / or with the promise of their attending schools and obtaining a better education than what they could get in Mozambique. Accused no 2, Violet Chauke, is Juliet’s younger sister, while Alice Chauke, AC’s mother was Juliet’s elder sister.  According to the uncontested evidence of these children, Juliet Chauke, who has since disappeared back into Mozambique and never charged in this matter, has also ‘trafficked’ her younger sister Violet Chauke, to South Africa in a similar way, but, later, when she became adult, she got a work and remained in South Africa.

JC was sent by her parents with Juliet and others to come and visit over the school holidays – also with a promise that she would return, which never happened. When she asked Juliet why she is not going back, she said that there was no money. AC was sent by her mother, Juliet’s and Violet’s elder sister to South Africa with a promise of better schooling, which never materialized – but she was never allowed to return. LK was abducted under false pretences after her primary care giver, her grandmother, refused Juliet permission to bring her to South Africa for better schooling. Later, however, Juliet found her on the way and told her that her grandmother had now agreed and, she was then made to accompany Juliet and others. She was also never enrolled at school in South Africa and not allowed to return. CM came to South Africa with Juliet in the presence of her own mother, Alice and her younger sister JM and others. The purported reason for their trip was to visit family members over the school holidays, after which they would return. Her mother returned, but she and her sister remained behind. When the mother later phoned and asked when they would be sent back, Juliet said that there was no money for that and that she would enrol them at school in South Africa. JC, AC and LK were brought to South Africa in 2009, while CM was brought during 2010.

Since none of them had valid passports, all of them were at different occasions smuggled over or through the border fence with South Africa, while Juliet used the border gate with a valid passport. On the other side of the border they were met by Juliet and other people, (sometimes a man perceived to be Juliet’s husband) and they were eventually transported to the place called Makostering (Rhenosterhoek) plantation village. This lumberjacks’ village is a very remote place with no direction or information boards, and a stranger would find it difficult to find the place without help and would experience true desolation if left there without food or shelter. A desolated place indeed, and if a stranger was brought there and chased away, as some of these children were threatened should they not do what they were told, they would literally not have anywhere to go.

Once resident in one of the small houses in the village, these girls were at different times, sometimes in the presence of others, taken (or sent) by Juliet, or fetched by accused no 1, to a larger house, about 1.5 kilometres away from the village, which reportedly belonged to accused no 1, the manager of the plantation / timber farm, and which was used as a residence by him. All of these witnesses described how they were then from time to time made to enter the bedroom, where they would be undressed (either by Juliet or accused no 1), or, later when they got used to it, they themselves did so, and they were also raped by accused no 1 on these occasions. All of them, with the exception of JC, who was raped only once, were raped several times according to their evidence. Each time they were being taken to the larger house by Juliet, or, later when they got used to their being exploited in this way, called or sent (by Juliet or, in her absence, by Violet, accused no 2) to go and attend accused no 1’s sexual pleasures. Sometimes he would pay Juliet, sometimes he would give them money to give to either Juliet or Violet, accused no 2. JC said that, when she was subsequent to her rape called to Mabuza’s house, she told the messengers that they should tell him that she is in her periods so that she did not have to go, and thus she evaded being raped a second time.

Three of them (AC, CM and JC) testified that they were during the first time threatened by accused no 1 with a fire arm should they not do what he says. Some of them (excluding only AC who was at the very first time forced to do so) at first refused to sleep with Mabuza, accused no 1, after which they were threatened by Juliet that they would be chased away, that they would not have anywhere to go or food to eat and, sometimes food like meat would be refused. This motivated the children to simply do as they were told.

It further emerged from the evidence of the children that there were times that Juliet would be absent – on her errands to Mozambique to traffick others or, simply to visit – and that the children would then be left in the care of her younger sister, Violet, accused no 2. From time to time, when Mabuza wanted to see one of them, he would phone Violet when she would ready them and send them to him (or he would come and fetch them), where they would be raped as before. Sometimes he would give them money that they had to give to accused no 2. During these times, Violet would care for them (harbour them) by giving them food, whilst fully knowing what they were there for and she would ready them and send them to accused no 1 at his request. All of the girls knew all too well they would be left destitute if they did not do as told.

The history described by some of the children about accused no 2, Violet, who was also trafficked (by her own elder sister) to South Africa for the sexual pleasure of accused no 1, shows that, when Violet became too old for his attentions, she got a work in the plantation at Rhenosterhoek, and that Juliet then had to go and look for new young blood to come and replace her.

One of the things that disturbed the children the most, was that, whenever they reported to Juliet that the accused had injured their private parts during the rapes, and that they bled, she did not respond or help them in any way. To AC she simply said that she would be alright and she would get used to it eventually. To the contrary, when they verbalised their unwillingness to be subjected to rape, or when they subsequently complained and appeared to be unwilling, Juliet threatened them with abandonment in this desolate place, where all of them were strangers. When they requested to be sent back, Juliet always indicated that there was no money. When they enquired about being sent to school, there was no money. To LK she said that she had to sleep with accused no 1 to get money to buy school uniforms. All this while they were related to Juliet, or knew her well enough to view her in a position of authority and trust and who seriously betrayed the trust of the children.

One day, JC decided to pack her things and run away from there and, at school, she was found out. The principal and the social worker, Lucia Sonya Khoza were summoned to speak to her. The most that they got out of her was that the other children that she left behind on the farm at Rhenosterhoek was being maltreated and sexually abused. When this was reported to the principal and the social worker, reports were made to the police, which led to Ramodike and others going to the village, where the other children were found. They were in a bad shape, clothes in tatters and dirty, their hair unkempt and in dreadlocks, and they were clearly very hungry.

This is where the investigation started. The investigation, before the matter was handed over to Nyathi, was however poorly done. Accused no 1 and Violet were arrested only much later. The particular house in which the incidents reportedly happened was never searched. Accused no 1’s fire arm was only later seized. Etcetera. The children were however put in a place of safety and, eventually, when they properly disclosed what happened statements must have been taken from them, which led to the case being investigated with a view to prosecute and the institution of these proceedings. The testimonies of children trafficked for sexual exploitation was corroborated, among other details, by the possession by the defendant of a firearm.

Accused no 1’s evidence

He stated that he had worked for York Timbers, until he started his own business rendering contracting services to York Timber at Rhenosterhoek and Blystaan from 2001. Juliet Chauke had worked for his enterprise at Blystaan under a sub-contractor.

He stated that the first time ever he saw accused no 2, was during 2011 or 2012, when she started working there as a general labourer. He never had any sexual relationship with accused no 2 or any of the children who testified, whom he did not even know. The first time he ever saw the children that testified, is when they appeared on the TV screen during their testimony. He does not know whether his employees could have family members visit or stay with them in the village, because that was York Timbers’ responsibility. If he wanted to employ more people, he had to ask York Timbers whether his people could use more houses in the village.

He cannot deny that the children who testified were staying in that village from 2009 to 2012 as they said they did. He cannot dispute the ages that the children testified they were at the time, nor their reported dates of birth. He however said that he can dispute that the children were ever raped in the main house, because at the relevant time, 2009 to 2011, neither he nor anyone else lived there. He does not know how the children could know of the suite bathroom in the main bedroom to that house. He specifically denied that he ever wore the firearm to work from 2006 until the date of his arrest, and he could therefore not say how the children could have known that he even possesses a firearm. There has never been any bad blood between him and Juliet, or between him and Violet, that could have turned the kids against him. He cannot say whether any of the children could have harboured a motive to falsely implicate him with these serious allegations, but he had overheard that they might have thought that he had a lot of money and that they would get some money if they falsely implicated him. It was pointed out to him that this version of his did not fly, because none of the children, out of their own, laid a charge against him. This case was uncovered by social workers and the police, not by the children. He however insisted that all of them were lying, just to get him into trouble.

Accused no 2’s version

Accused no 2 never testified, but her version that was put to the children was that she never had anything to do with their maltreatment, and that she only gave them shelter and food during the absence of Juliet. One or two of the children agreed with this, but others made it clear that, in Juliet’s absence, she pertinently readied them and sent them to accused no 1 at his telephonic requests, and that, at occasion, she received money from accused no 1 via them. These allegations by the children were never denied by her in evidence that could be tested through cross-examination for the veracity thereof.

Examination of the victims by a forensic nurse and a medical doctor

Kok is a forensic nurse and Grabe a medical doctor and professor, who is an expert in dealing with the examination of victims, especially children in sexual assault cases. Kok saw injuries on the private parts of only certain of the girls that she examined, but was quick to add, which was confirmed by Grabe, that the absence of injuries does not necessarily exclude sexual penetration. She was however clearly inexperienced compared to Grabe, who saw more clear indications on the private parts of all the girls she examined that was indicative of sexual penetration of their genitals. This evidence serves to support the four complainants’ versions that they have been sexually penetrated. Of course, these witnesses could not say whether the children had been raped and by whom, although the lesions on their private part were indicative of tears that have healed, which suggested that at least some force had to be used to effect penetration. In her professional opinion based on scientific observations, Grabe, in addition, also put the relevant ages of the girls at the same level than the respective ages that they gave her and the court.