HIGH Court Judge Mumcy Dlamini has come under criticism from gender rights activists and civil society leaders for remarks suggesting a review of Eswatini’s Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence (SODV) Act of 2018.
The judge made comments that a revisit may be necessary, citing concerns over young men acquiring criminal records for relationships with minors.
The backlash follows Dlamini’s comments made during urgent bail proceedings for four young men charged under the SODV Act for allegedly engaging in sexual activity with girls aged between 16 and 18.
While the judge granted each of the accused bail of E50 000 with E5 000 payable in cash and E45 000 as surety, she warned that more young men may “find themselves with criminal records” under the current law.
Her remarks have triggered a wave of criticism, with women’s rights advocates warning against what they see as an overly sympathetic view of alleged perpetrators at the expense of young survivors.
Also Read: Ministry embark on exercise to vaccinate of cattle
Africa Regional Coordinator for the One Billion Rising Campaign, Colani Hlatjwako was among the first to publicly respond. In a widely shared Facebook post, Hlatjwako expressed concern that the judge’s comments may shift focus away from the law’s primary intent, protecting women and girls from sexual violence.
“It is concerning that Judge Mumcy appears more focused on the potential for men to ‘find themselves in trouble,’ rather than offering a constructive and balanced review of the SODV Act,” Hlatjwako wrote.
“What we need is not to focus solely on the flaws of the Act, but a thoughtful, solutions-oriented perspective that acknowledges its purpose and progress,” he said. Hlatjwako also highlighted a worrying trend of alleged perpetrators being released on bail and later reoffending, even killing survivors in some instances.
“The increasing cases of violence underscore the urgent need for a constructive review of the Act,” he said, “not commentary that could be seen as excusing or minimising the actions of perpetrators.”
National Coordinator of the Swaziland Rural Women’s Assembly (SRWA), Zakithi Sibandze echoed similar sentiments. She accused the judiciary of failing to centre survivors in discussions around the implementation of the Act. “When we say in Eswatini the perpetrator is the one who is always protected, this is what we mean,” said Sibandze.
“Judge Mumcy is saying the SODV Act needs to be reviewed because perpetrators remain with criminal records. She never balanced that with the future of the young girls involved. That’s a concern.” Sibandze called for intensified national awareness campaigns to ensure the public understands the SODV Act and its implications, rather than pushing for amendments that might weaken protections. Several members of the public also weighed in on social media, with many questioning whether the courts are sending the right message by offering bail packages that are perceived to be lenient.
“They are the very same people that offer measures that make bail possible at E5 000 cash and the rest in asset form? That’s easy,” one user commented. “Why not make it E15 000 to E20 000 in cash?”
The controversy stems from four separate bail applications involving accused men aged 20 to 27 who claim to have been in consensual relationships with teenage girls.
All insisted they believed the girls were over the age of 18.
Still, under Section 3 of the SODV Act, sexual activity with anyone under 18 is criminalised, regardless of consent or the accused’s belief about the survivor’s age. The defence, led by prominent lawyer Sabelo ‘Chicken’ Dlamini, argued that these cases represent a growing legal grey area where young men are punished for relationships that may be consensual but fall foul of a strict liability statute.
While the SODV Act has been celebrated as a progressive tool in the fight against sexual and domestic violence, its implementation has drawn both praise and critique.
Some of those who shared their thoughts stated that it is clear that any review of the Act must be undertaken with extreme caution and wide consultation, particularly with organisations working directly with survivors.
