AfriForum’s Private Prosecution Unit is pursuing the criminal prosecution of ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula over comments he made about former Bergview College principal Jaco Pieterse and an alleged rape case involving a seven-year-old girl.
The legal move follows a complaint by Pieterse, who says he was publicly associated with the alleged rape even though the National Prosecuting Authority declined to prosecute anyone in the matter.
Mbalula referred to the alleged rape as “disgraceful” during a media address in April 2025. He also allegedly described Pieterse as an “animal” and accused AfriForum of shielding suspects.
AfriForum now argues that Mbalula’s comments amounted to crimen injuria, a criminal offence involving the unlawful and intentional impairment of another person’s dignity. The organisation says the circumstances made it clear that Mbalula’s words were understood to refer to Pieterse, even though he did not allegedly mention the former principal by name.
Mbalula and the ANC have not accepted the allegations. The ANC’s national spokesperson, Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri, said the secretary-general would not comment on AfriForum’s action.
“The SG [secretary-general] is not commenting on AfriForum,” Bhengu-Motsiri said.
The case centres on an allegation made by the mother of a child who was reportedly at Bergview College in Matatiele, in the Eastern Cape, in October 2024. The allegation led to a public campaign against Pieterse and the school’s caretaker, both of whom are represented by AfriForum’s Private Prosecution Unit.
According to AfriForum, the NPA later confirmed that it would not prosecute anyone in connection with the alleged rape. The prosecuting authority said there was no evidence of rape or sexual assault after the child was interviewed and examined by medical practitioners and forensic social workers.
The NPA’s decision did not establish that the child’s mother had deliberately made a false allegation. It meant that prosecutors did not believe there was sufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal case against any person in connection with the allegation.
The distinction is central to the dispute. AfriForum says Pieterse was treated publicly as a child rapist even though he had never been a suspect and despite the NPA’s decision not to prosecute. The organisation is now asking the criminal justice system to consider whether political comments caused unlawful harm to his dignity.
Advocate Gerrie Nel, head of AfriForum’s Private Prosecution Unit, said the organisation reviewed the docket after learning that a decision not to prosecute had already been made on 4 December 2025.
“We thought that decision was absolutely irrational. There was only one statement, and that was the complainant’s. The prosecutor gave reasons why they would not be prosecuting, but we soon realised those reasons were unconvincing and merely an excuse not to prosecute,” Nel said.
AfriForum supported Pieterse in laying criminal complaints against Mbalula, EFF leader Julius Malema and Eastern Cape Education MEC Fundile Gade. The organisation says the three politicians made comments that publicly associated Pieterse with the alleged crime.
The NPA decided in August to prosecute Malema, according to AfriForum. The matter involving Mbalula is now being pursued separately, with the Private Prosecution Unit arguing that his public comments meet the legal requirements for a criminal case.
Mbalula made the comments on 1 April 2025 after an ANC meeting. He was discussing the alleged rape and criticised AfriForum’s involvement in representing Pieterse.
“Even more disgraceful is the involvement of organisations like AfriForum, who shield suspects rather than standing for justice.”
At the time, AfriForum was publicly known to be representing Pieterse. The organisation says Mbalula allegedly went further by describing Pieterse as an animal and saying that AfriForum was defending an animal.
Nel said it was not decisive that Pieterse was not expressly named. He argued that the court should consider the complete context, including the public controversy, the identity of the people AfriForum represented and the timing of Mbalula’s comments.
“The fact that Mr Pieterse was not expressly named cannot, in the circumstances of this matter, be determinative. The question is not merely whether his name was uttered, but whether the words, viewed in their full context and against the surrounding circumstances, were objectively understood to refer to him.”
Nel said the evidence should be assessed as a whole and that circumstantial evidence could be important in deciding whether the comments referred to Pieterse.
“The evidence and surrounding circumstances must be considered in their totality. Every prosecutor must be [aware] of the value and strength of circumstantial evidence.”
He said Pieterse’s alleged experience of reputational harm could not be dismissed, particularly because he had been associated publicly with an allegation involving a young child.
“Similarly, the fact that Mr Pieterse subjectively experienced an impairment of his dignity cannot simply be dismissed. The circumstances are particularly compelling given that he was publicly associated with the alleged rape of a seven-year-old child, even though he had never been a suspect and despite the subsequent confirmation of the NPA that there was no evidence that the child had been raped,” Nel said.
AfriForum spokesperson Barry Bateman said Mbalula understood the damage caused by false criminal allegations because he had previously approached the courts when he was accused of involvement in the murder of Wandile Bozwana.
Bateman referred to a judgment from last year in which Mbalula argued that false accusations had harmed his reputation and dignity and caused anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment.
“Mbalula, therefore, fully understands the harm caused by falsely accusing someone of committing a crime. He must realise that publicly branding a career teacher a child rapist and an animal, without a shred of evidence to support such a claim, fundamentally violates that teacher’s right to dignity.”
Bateman said the unit believed a criminal court would agree with its position and that the case could establish consequences for politicians who make serious claims from public platforms.
“AfriForum’s Private Prosecution Unit believes a criminal court will agree, convict him accordingly, and send a clear message that there are consequences for politicians who use their public platforms to spread lies with scant regard for the consequences,” said Bateman.
AfriForum chief executive Kallie Kriel said the organisation wanted people to be held responsible when public statements allegedly damaged another person’s life.
“You cannot go about trying to destroy someone’s life with lies. We’ve had enough of lies, and we will make sure people are held accountable.”
Kriel added:
“And it’s mostly the politicians that have done so.”
Nel said the case would proceed in court and that political status should not shield anyone from legal accountability.
“Even politicians impair your dignity, and we want to make it clear that no one is above the law,” he added.
The case raises difficult questions about political speech, the protection of children, the presumption of innocence and the harm caused when public figures comment on allegations before a criminal case has been proved. It also highlights the difference between making a public allegation, investigating a complaint and securing a conviction.
The NPA’s decision not to prosecute in the Bergview matter means no person has been convicted of the alleged rape. Pieterse’s complaint against Mbalula is a separate matter concerning the words used in public and their alleged impact on his dignity.
The court will ultimately have to decide whether Mbalula’s comments referred to Pieterse, whether they were unlawful and intentional, and whether the prosecution has proved the elements of crimen injuria.
For now, AfriForum says it will continue with the case, while Mbalula and the ANC have declined to comment. The dispute is set to place renewed focus on the limits of political rhetoric and the responsibility of public figures when speaking about unproven criminal allegations.
