Ramesa Johannes Rathebe v The State

The appellant, Mr Rathebe, was convicted by the trial court on 11 counts of rape together with a co-accused, Mr Sekoala. Both appellants were convicted on the evidence of a single complainant. They unsuccessfully appealed their convictions and sentences to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. Mr Sekoala subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal and was acquitted on all charges in February 2024. Mr Rathebe had initially been released on warning in November 2023 pending the outcome of this appeal. At trial, Mr Rathebe's version was wholly exculpatory - he denied sexual intercourse with the complainant and testified about intervening when Mr Sekoala manhandled the complainant. The complainant's evidence that she was raped by both accused was the sole evidence against them. Both accused were serving 20-year imprisonment sentences (Mr Rathebe until his release on warning).

• Whether an accused person whose erstwhile co-accused was acquitted on appeal on the same facts and charges is entitled to the same relief
• Whether the convictions based on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness met the threshold required by section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
• Whether the trial court and high court properly applied the test for evaluating single witness testimony
• Whether the interests of justice and constitutional rights to fair trial and equality require identical treatment of similarly situated co-accused
• What constitutes proper heads of argument by the State in criminal appeals

1. The appeal is upheld. 2. The order of the full bench (high court) is set aside and substituted with: 'Accused 2 is found not guilty and discharged on all 11 counts of rape.' Condonation for late filing of the appeal was also granted.

Where an erstwhile co-accused has been acquitted on appeal on the same charges and on the same set of facts, and the evidence against both accused is identical (being solely the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness), the similarly situated accused is entitled to the same acquittal on the basis of the constitutional rights to a fair trial (section 35(3)) and equality (section 9). The evidence of a single witness under section 208 of the CPA must be clear and satisfactory in every material respect and meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. A trial court commits a material misdirection when it considers the complainant's evidence in isolation without properly weighing the strengths and weaknesses of both the State's and the accused's versions, and where reasonable inferences favorable to the accused are not properly considered, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

The Court made important observations about the professional obligations of prosecutors appearing in the Supreme Court of Appeal. It emphasized that while prosecutors may work under pressure and tight court schedules, this cannot excuse the failure to file proper heads of argument. Rule 10 read with Rule 10A provides prosecutors with one month after receiving the appellant's heads to prepare their own, which is sufficient time to produce well-reasoned and detailed heads of argument. The Court stated that failure to comply with these rules amounts to a breach of professional duty owed by prosecutors as representatives of the State in criminal matters and to the Court. The Court criticized the initial three-page heads filed by the State in this matter as being of no assistance to the Court and not in line with the Practice Directives.

This case reinforces the constitutional principles of fairness and equality in criminal proceedings, particularly where co-accused are tried on the same facts. It demonstrates the court's willingness to ensure that similarly situated accused persons receive equal treatment, even where appeals are conducted separately. The judgment emphasizes the stringent requirements for convictions based on single witness testimony under section 208 of the CPA, requiring evidence that is 'clear and satisfactory in every material respect.' The case also serves as an important reminder to prosecutors of their professional obligations to file proper, comprehensive heads of argument that assist the court, and clarifies that inadequate submissions constitute a breach of professional duty. The judgment illustrates the application of the interests of justice principle in correcting anomalous outcomes in 'split appeals' involving erstwhile co-accused.