Khayelitsha rape suspect sentenced amid 'ploy to delay trial'
Melunzi Tom was convicted in the Khayelitsha Regional Court, where his attempts to delay the trial were scrutinised by the acting magistrate.
Image: File
For his blatant attempt to "ride the system", rape accused Melunzi Tom has been convicted in the Khayelitsha Regional Court for disregarding court proceedings and attempting 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.