The State v Nkoketsang Elliot Pilane

The respondent was convicted of rape in the Rustenburg Regional Court and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. During the trial, three state witnesses testified through an interpreter, and the oath was administered by the interpreter in the presence of the presiding magistrate. On appeal, the North West Division of the High Court held that this constituted an irregularity, found the witnesses’ evidence to be unsworn and inadmissible, and set aside the conviction and sentence. The State appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal on a question of law concerning the interpretation of section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.

The appeal was upheld; the order of the High Court was set aside; the conviction and sentence imposed by the regional court were reinstated; and the matter was remitted to the High Court for the appeal to be heard on the merits.

The case clarifies the correct interpretation of section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act and confirms that interpreters are lawfully empowered to administer the oath to witnesses who testify through them, provided this occurs in the presence or under the supervision of the judicial officer. It resolves uncertainty created by earlier misinterpretations and affirms long‑standing criminal court practice across South Africa.