KARIEGA – A 56-year-old gynaecologist of Nigerian descent appeared in the Kariega Magistrates’ Court today, 12 February 2026, on a charge of rape of a minor. He appeared for his formal bail application and pleaded not guilty to the charge against him.
The accused appeared calm in court and showed no visible remorse. The State is opposing bail and indicated that further charges may follow.
The accused, who is fluent in English, confirmed he did not require an interpreter. Through his attorney, Andre Dorfling, he brought a bail application under Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act and confirmed that he understood the implications of a Schedule 6 charge.
In an affidavit submitted to the court, the accused stated that he has no previous convictions, no pending cases and no protection orders against him. The affidavit was not initially properly commissioned and contained a discrepancy in paragraph seven. Proceedings stood down briefly to allow corrections. The amended affidavit was signed by the accused and his attorney, and handed in as Exhibit A. The accused confirmed on record that the contents were correct and that he understood that providing false information would constitute a criminal offence.
He told the court he is married to a South African with seven children aged between 13 and 24, and is the sole breadwinner. He said he owns three properties in Kariega, Centurion and Pretoria, and has been employed by the Department of Health at Dora Nginza Hospital since 2018. He stated that he came to South Africa in 2009 and has since obtained South African citizenship. He pleaded not guilty and said he wished to be released, as he believes he has done nothing to justify remaining in custody. The defence argued that his continued detention is not in the interest of justice, as his absence affects patient care at Dora Nginza Hospital, which is already short-staffed.
Warrant Officer Mbulelo Grootboom of the Kariega Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offences Unit testified in opposition to bail. Grootboom has 23 years’ service in the South African Police Service, including 22 years as an investigating officer and 16 years dealing with sexual offences.
He told the court that the case was opened on 7 February 2026 after the complainant’s mother reported the matter at Despatch SAPS. The complainant is 15 years old. The alleged incident took place on 2 February 2026.
According to the complainant’s statement, she was introduced to the accused, known to her as ‘King’, by a friend in December 2025. The friend allegedly told her that the accused was looking for someone to have sex with in exchange for money. A meeting was arranged.
The complainant alleged that she, her 16-year-old friend and the friend’s 14-year-old sister were picked up in Gqeberha at about 19:00 by the accused in a black Chery vehicle. They travelled to Kariega, where the accused allegedly purchased alcoholic beverages and pizza before driving to his residence in Kariega.
At the house, which consists of a main house and outside rooms, the girls ate pizza and drank alcoholic beverages. The complainant alleged that during the night the accused signalled for her to come outside. She later went with him to an outside room, where he allegedly locked the door and had sexual intercourse with her. She stated that after the incident, he gave her a towel and they returned to the main house.
The investigating officer testified that the complainant said she knew she would receive money in exchange for sex. Later, the accused allegedly withdrew money from a bank in town and gave the complainant R800, her friend R200 and the younger girl R50 before driving them back to a bus stop in Gqeberha.
The complainant informed her mother of the incident, and a charge was laid on 7 February with SAPS Despatch. The accused was contacted by Grootboom, informed of the allegations and warned not to contact the complainant. He presented himself at the Kariega police station on Monday, 9 February 2026 and was arrested.
Grootboom confirmed that the accused has no previous convictions, no pending cases and no outstanding warrants. However, he told the court that two additional rape cases involving minors aged 15 and 16 are under investigation, although no formal charges have yet been added.
In opposing bail, the State argued that the complainant is a minor and that the matter falls under Schedule 6. Grootboom testified that if convicted, the accused could face a minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. He said the accused knows the area where the complainant lives and may interfere with witnesses, including the complainant and the two friends who have made statements and agreed to testify. He further said that it is common for witnesses in such matters to be threatened after suspects are released.
The State also referred to community protests opposing bail and submitted that releasing the accused could undermine public confidence in the justice system. Grootboom stated that although the accused is now a South African citizen, he is originally from Nigeria and may evade trial. He said the seriousness of the charge and the pending investigations justified opposition to bail.
Under cross-examination, Grootboom conceded that there was no evidence that the accused had attempted to contact or threaten witnesses. He confirmed that the accused complied with instructions to present himself to police and had not attempted to abscond.
The defence argued that the complainant consented and that the accused was unaware she was under the age of 16. Counsel submitted that he had been told she was 17. The investigating officer disputed this, stating that the organiser had indicated the accused was looking for girls aged 16 or younger.
The defence further argued that the State had not shown that the release of the accused would interfere with court proceedings. It submitted that he has strong ties to South Africa, including his marriage to a South African citizen, fixed employment and property ownership. Counsel argued that although the accused knows the area where the complainant resides, there is no evidence that he knows her physical address.
“The court can’t deny bail purely because the community is upset. If that’s the case, it will impact all future cases,” the presiding magistrate told the court.
Dorfling submitted that the State had not placed sufficient evidence before the court to justify refusal of bail under Schedule 6. The defence also argued that the matter should not fall under Schedule 6 based on the evidence presented.
The State prosecutor maintained that the offence falls under Schedule 6 and that the seriousness of the charge warrants refusal of bail. She argued that even if some factors favour the accused, the court may refuse bail under the relevant provisions. She added that although there is a likelihood that witnesses could be harmed, the State could not provide specific evidence as to how this would occur.
The presiding magistrate reserved judgement on the bail application. The matter was postponed to Friday, 13 February for a ruling. The accused remains in custody pending the outcome.
