S v Zuma and Two Others

The applicants were accused in a criminal trial in the Natal Provincial Division on charges of murder and robbery. Two of the accused had made written confessions before a magistrate. In terms of section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, such confessions were presumed to have been made freely and voluntarily unless the accused proved the contrary on a balance of probabilities. During a trial-within-a-trial, the accused alleged that the confessions were induced by police assaults and threats. The trial court found that although the State had not proved voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt, the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumption. The constitutionality of section 217(1)(b)(ii), which imposed a reverse onus on the accused, was challenged and ultimately came before the Constitutional Court by way of granted direct access.

Section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 was declared unconstitutional and invalid. The presumption placing the onus on the accused to disprove voluntariness of a confession was struck down.

This was one of the earliest and most important criminal justice decisions of the Constitutional Court. It affirmed the constitutional status of the presumption of innocence and clarified that reverse onus provisions in criminal law are prima facie unconstitutional unless they comply with constitutional standards. The case fundamentally reshaped the law of confessions in South Africa and signalled a decisive break from apartheid-era procedural rules that undermined fair trial rights.