Lawyer Carel Schoeman, who is standing trial in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on allegations that he “bought” and raped a 13-year-old girl, has pleaded not guilty to 26 charges that include rape, human trafficking, sexual exploitation of children and child abuse. His defence, presented from the witness stand this week, is that he believed the girl was an adult and that their relationship was consensual — but he has told the court he began to feel uneasy about her age after a waiter at a Spur restaurant in Witbank asked her to produce identification because they were seated in a smoking section.
The case centres on a minor who, according to the State, was exploited through sex work and allegedly “purchased” through a payment arrangement between Schoeman and the girl’s mother. The mother is also on trial. She faces 72 charges related to allegations that she forced her two daughters — aged 13 and 11 at the time — into sex work. She too has pleaded not guilty.
Schoeman’s testimony on Wednesday focused heavily on age, consent and the alleged financial arrangement with the mother. The State’s version is that Schoeman’s payments formed part of a deal in which the child was effectively bought. Schoeman’s version is that he was misled about the girl’s age and that he believed he was helping to remove her from sex work under an agreement he claims was made with the mother.
Schoeman has told the court he first encountered the girl through an online sex work platform. He testified earlier that he found her profile on Sex Trader, where she was advertised as a 19-year-old escort. The profile, he said, contained photos of the child posing in a bikini, with her face not shown. Schoeman said he made several bookings for her, including paying R10 000 to the mother to take the girl on a weekend getaway to a French-inspired wine estate in Parys in the Free State.
Schoeman’s evidence is that he believed she was an adult at the time and that the relationship later became romantic. He has described the girl as his fiancée during parts of his testimony.
The child’s account is different and central to the State’s case. It is her version that she was forced into sex work by her mother, who allegedly used the money to feed a drug habit, and that none of the sexual encounters — including those involving Schoeman — were consensual.
Schoeman’s testimony about the January 2023 Witbank trip is now a key point of dispute. On 11 January 2023, the girl accompanied him on what he described as a work trip to Witbank, where he needed to obtain a protection order for a client. After returning from court, he said, he met the girl at the hotel where they were staying and went with her to Spur. There, he said, they sat in the smoking section — an adults-only area under South Africa’s smoking laws.
According to Schoeman, the waiter approached them and asked for the girl’s identity document, explaining it was the restaurant’s policy. Schoeman told the court he then asked the girl to have her mother send her ID so they could remain seated in the smoking area. That request, he said, did not go as planned.
Schoeman testified:
After a while, Accused 1 [the mother] sent a message saying she had a virus on her phone and, at that stage, could not send [name redacted’s] ID document.
Schoeman said that response planted doubt. He testified that he became suspicious not only about the girl’s age, but also about whether he was being deceived by the mother-daughter pair. He told the court he also began questioning whether the girl would stop working as a sex worker — and whether he was being “taken for a ride” by the duo.
He linked those doubts to what he described as an agreement between him and the mother. In terms of that alleged agreement, he said, he would pay either R150 000 or R160 000 so that the girl would no longer do sex work. The court has heard that he had already paid R25 000 as a down payment. Prosecutors argue this money was part of a purchase arrangement for the child.
Schoeman told the court he confronted the girl about his concerns. He said she denied any attempt to mislead him and even suggested she would undergo a polygraph test. Schoeman testified that he acted on that suggestion: while still in Witbank, he took her to a company that conducts polygraph examinations and arranged for her to be tested.
According to his evidence, the questions she answered included whether she and her mother were trying to swindle him, and how old she was. He told the court that after the test, the girl admitted she had not been truthful about her age.
“She then told me that she was not 18, but would be turning 18 later that year. I was shocked, but I believed her,” Schoeman said.
He testified that he was also shocked that the mother “allowed” the girl to do sex work if she was not yet an adult, but said the disclosure did not end their relationship.
But Schoeman contended that they were in love, so the bombshell did not affect their relationship.
Two days later, Schoeman said, he received the polygraph results. He testified those results confirmed the girl had lied about her age. He then messaged the mother, demanding repayment of the R25 000 and warning that she had committed crimes because the girl was a minor.
Schoeman testified that, at that stage, he felt misled about the girl’s age; however, the alleged relationship between them continued.
He told the court that on 13 January 2023 he messaged the mother requesting the girl’s ID for a contract linked to the alleged agreement — and said he also wanted proof of the girl’s age. Later, he said, the mother sent the girl a copy of an identity document, which the girl then forwarded to him. That document indicated she was 18. The court has previously heard evidence that the ID was fake.
Schoeman’s evidence was that by late January 2023 he still believed the girl was 17 and turning 18 later that year, and that he would have proceeded with marriage if that were true.
The mother’s version, as presented in the broader trial, is that her daughters became sex workers of their own free will and that she did not know it was against the law. The child’s version is that she was forced into sex work and that the encounters were not consensual. Schoeman’s version is that he believed she was an adult, that the relationship was consensual, and that he was misled about her age — even though, on his own testimony, he became suspicious and took steps to test the truth.
The court will ultimately have to weigh these sharply conflicting accounts against the evidence, including the alleged payment arrangement, the timeline of communications, the polygraph episode, and evidence already led about the ID document and the sex work advertising. With both Schoeman and the mother pleading not guilty, the trial continues with high stakes: the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that crimes were committed, while the defence is attempting to cast doubt on intent, knowledge, and consent in circumstances involving a minor.
—
