Melunzi Tom was convicted at the Khayelitsha Regional Court, where his attempts to delay the trial were scrutinised by the acting magistrate.
Image: Jeffrey Abrahams / File
Melunzi Tom was recently convicted in the Khayelitsha Regional Court for his blatant disregard for court proceedings and an earnest attempt to delay a rape trial against him.
Although he denied his guilt, the court found him culpable based on the judgment delivered by an acting regional magistrate. The magistrate noted that Tom frequently requested his legal representatives to withdraw from the case.
According to the judgment, four different legal representatives represented Tom, and all four withdrew for various reasons.
The acting magistrate, D. Francke said: “Tom's strategy was a ploy to delay the trial. He sought to dictate the pace of litigation, and this was untenable. Such conduct stops section 35 (3) (d) of the Constitution clock from ticking in favor of the person charged. The court invoked section 73 (2) (c) read with section 342 A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51/ 1977 that the matter would proceed without legal representation,” his judgment noted.
The decision was made by the court for the matter “to conclude, otherwise it would have opened the door not only to abuse but also to unfortunate results”.
Francke added that an arrested or detained person may not be permitted to hinder the work of the judiciary by acting in a way that prevents the judiciary from adequately carrying out its tasks.
Since July 10, 2018, Tom had nine legal representatives representing him before he pleaded to the charge he faced.
He was convicted on March 20. According to the court judgment, on a few occasions Tom was adamant that he preferred to represent himself despite warnings from the court that he should appoint an attorney.
He attended a pre-trial conference without a legal representative, during which his rights were explained and on March 9, 2023 he pleaded not guilty to a charge of contravening section 3 of the Criminal Law Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Act 32 of 2007, read with section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
“On many occasions, the court had to excuse state witnesses because, on the day of trial or when further evidence was to be heard, legal representatives withdrew. To illustrate the blatant disregard for the court proceedings, Tom walked out of the courtroom. The complainant was testifying, and because the Court did not adhere to his request, he walked out of the court. The court invoked Section 159 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. He returned because the matter had to be postponed,” said Francke.
Francke, having cited from case law, said the accused, “like so many other accused in our courts, decided to 'ride the system’.”
“Our courts are far too often exposed to accused persons who exploit their constitutional right to legal representation by requesting remands for the feigned purpose of obtaining such representation, and in the hope that the court's final refusal would provide a convenient platform for arguing that their trial was unfair. Repeated remands to obtain legal representation clog the court rolls, witnesses become frustrated, memories fade, and the public is left with the impression that the system cannot cope”, the case law citation read.
During trial, Tom who had brought an application to have him discharged after the state closed its case, also sought to cast doubt on the victim’s credibility as a single witness but the court, having heard expert evidence which linked Tom to the crime through DNA evidence, refuted his arguments.
Tom had also through a bare denial said he did not commit the rape as he was in the Eastern Cape where he was looking after his mother, at the time the offence. Tom could not or did not provide the court with the nature of his mother’s illness, or where exactly he resided in the Eastern Cape. The court said while Tom was disbelieved about his alibi it did not prove the opposite of what he asserted. It did however, affect his credibility.
The complainant testified from March 2023 to late 2025 during which the court found her testimony to be coherent, consistent, and logical.
“She provided the court with context about where she was, with who she was, and what led to her being sexually assaulted,” said Francke.
It was also the rape victim’s testimony that she feared Tom, who was known in the community as a rapist, and which resulted in her not screaming when the offense occurred.
chevon.booysen@inl.co.za