The wife of a man killed in a violent road rage shooting in Emmarentia, Johannesburg, could herself face criminal charges for allegedly handing a firearm to her husband in the moments before he was gunned down.
Human rights lawyer and director of civil society organisation Accountability Now, Advocate Paul Hoffman, says the woman’s actions may amount to “aiding and abetting” her husband in an apparent attempt to shoot the 58-year-old motorist who is now the central suspect in the case.
The incident unfolded on Barry Hertzog Avenue on Sunday afternoon after what has been described as a minor bumper-bashing and an argument over overtaking. It ended with 48-year-old Faisal ul Rehman lying dead in the road and his wife, Tehseen, critically injured.
According to police, the altercation escalated when Rehman’s wife allegedly fetched a firearm from their vehicle during a heated verbal dispute between the two drivers. This prompted the other motorist to draw his own weapon, resulting in a deadly exchange of gunfire.
According to police, during the verbal argument between the two drivers, Rehman's wife allegedly retrieved a firearm from their vehicle, which led the suspect to draw his own weapon, leading to the shooting of Rehman and Tehseen. Rehman was declared dead on the scene, while Tehseen was taken to the hospital.
By Tuesday, the 58-year-old driver had been arrested on charges of murder and attempted murder. However, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) announced that it would not, at this stage, proceed with a formal prosecution, citing gaps in the evidence that still need to be addressed.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on Tuesday said that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the case at this stage. The case may be re-enrolled once further investigations are completed by the police.
It is against this backdrop that Hoffman believes investigators may also need to scrutinise the conduct of Rehman’s wife.
Hoffman said that although this is a difficult case, it could have been the other way around if the suspect had not been armed. “She was arming someone who was in a fight, and if the person who was intruding had not been armed, it might have been the other way around, and the husband would have been accused of murdering the man who is now the suspect in the case.
“If she is arming a person who is in a fight with somebody who is unarmed, which is what she knew at that time (I don’t think she would have pulled a gun if she knew that the man she was fighting with her husband had a gun), she would be guilty of aiding and abetting her husband to shoot the suspect,” he said, adding that he understood why the NPA did not jump to any conclusion as the suspect could have acted in self-defence.
His comments point to the complex legal terrain now facing investigators: not only must they establish who fired which shots and in what sequence, they must also determine whether the shooter acted in self-defence and whether any other parties may be criminally liable for escalating the conflict by introducing a firearm.
Asked if this was possible, Gauteng police spokesperson Colonel Dimakatso Nevhuhulwi said investigations are ongoing, adding that police will communicate updates as they arise.
Meanwhile, road safety and gun-control advocates say the case highlights how quickly routine collisions can spiral into lethal violence when firearms are present and tempers are already frayed.
Advocate Johan Jonck, founder of the Arrive Alive initiative, notes that although “road rage” is not a specific criminal category in South African law, incidents of aggression on the roads are already fully covered by common law offences.
Meanwhile, the founder of Arrive Alive, Advocate Johan Jonck, said that even though there is no specific law concerning road rage, this case falls under normal common law crime, which includes assault, attempted murder, and murder.
He said the court will have to look at whether there was self-defence and whether the suspect acted reasonably.
“It has to look at what his intention was and if he really felt that his life was in danger in order to establish if there was an intention for murder, which is a normal criminal procedure,” he said.
The outcome will hinge on classic questions in criminal law: was there an immediate threat, was the force used proportionate, and at what point – if any – did an act of self-defence become unlawful retaliation?
Non-profit organisation Gun Free South Africa (GFSA) has also weighed in, stressing that the legal framework governing the use of firearms remains strict, including in confrontations on public roads.
Non-profit organisation Gun Free South Africa (GFSA), said the legal standards governing firearm use remain strict, including on the road.
The organisation’s executive director, Dr Stanley Maphosa, said that although Section 13 provides for licensing a firearm for self-defence, it does not create a blanket right to introduce a firearm into conflict.
“Lawful use still turns on narrow principles of immediate threat, necessity and proportionality. We would also draw attention to Section 120, which addresses negligent and reckless conduct involving firearms, including conduct that may endanger others in public spaces. Roads are shared public spaces. That matters,” Maphosa said.
He added that the key question is not just whether a gun was legally owned, but whether it was responsibly and lawfully used under the circumstances.
He added that the issue is not only whether a gun is legal or illegal, or whether an owner is ordinarily law-abiding. It is whether a lethal tool is being introduced into conditions where emotions are heightened, judgment is impaired, control may be compromised, and public risk expands rapidly.
With bystander videos of the Emmarentia shooting already widely shared online, public opinion has been quick to form. But legal experts caution that such footage rarely tells the full story on its own and must be tested alongside forensic evidence, ballistics, autopsy reports and witness testimony before any definitive legal conclusions can be drawn.
Beyond the court case, worker representatives in the motor industry say the Emmarentia incident is part of a broader pattern of escalating anger on South Africa’s roads.
The Motor Industry Staff Association (MISA) said road rage is not only a criminal justice issue but a societal challenge that requires collective responsibility. The union said motorists must remember that every journey carries risks, and a moment of anger can destroy lives forever.
“We call on all motorists to exercise restraint and never allow anger to dictate their actions. A minor collision or insult should never escalate into violence. South Africa cannot afford to lose more lives to road rage. Let us commit to protecting one another on our roads, for the sake of our families and our children,” said Martle Keyter, MISA’s chief executive officer for operations.
For now, the NPA’s decision to hold off on prosecution keeps the legal status of the 58-year-old shooter, and any potential case against Rehman’s wife, in limbo. As police continue their investigation, the Emmarentia shooting has become a flashpoint in the national conversation about guns, rage and responsibility on South Africa’s roads – and a stark reminder of how a minor crash can, within seconds, become a family’s worst nightmare.
