Illustrative Image: Western Cape Division of the High Court in Cape Town. (Image: Leila Dougan) | Child (Image: Freepik) 
The wellbeing of two children whose parents are accused of trafficking and sexually exploiting an employee, which they deny, has become the focus of legal proceedings.
This matter may even head to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Daily Maverick is withholding the names of the parents to safeguard the children.
The boy is several months old and the girl is about five years old – and it appears that she suffered abuse.
On one side of this saga is an ongoing case against the parents involving accusations relating to kidnapping, sexual assault and drugs, which they have denied.
On the other side are the parents’ counterclaims that the complainant in the case turned against them because she lost her job with them, which had involved travelling abroad.
The parents also produced an affidavit suggesting “the complainant was once involved in a crime of impersonation of a jockey in 2023 while she was working in the horse racing industry and is currently being sued for repayment of that money.”
At the centre of this saga are the two children.
Read more: Gaps in the safety net — breaking down state and societal protections for children
The parents were detained in Melkbosstrand, about 30km from Cape Town, in October last year.
Among the accusations against them, emanating from the complainant, was that the mother had sexually abused the girl.
According to court documents in the parents’ case, their two children were medically assessed and while the boy was fine, a doctor found older injuries on the girl suggesting possible blunt force anal and genital penetration.
The parents’ stance on this was that “sometime earlier, they discovered that the child was abused by a certain… [man]… whose access to the child was through their helper, whom they dismissed as a result of that act.”
‘Urgent legal steps’
Last month, in May 2025, the couple was released on bail and subsequently obtained a high court order, with conditions, stating the girl may stay with a relative (her parents could visit her), or with her parents if certain issues were ironed out, and the boy may stay with his parents.
Certain authorities, however, are dissatisfied.
Last week, the Western Cape Social Development Department told Daily Maverick: “The department took urgent legal steps to suspend the implementation of the high court order but was unsuccessful in that process.
“The reasons for the judgment have not been released by the high court but the Department is in the process of applying to the Supreme Court of Appeal to intervene as a party and appeal against the judgment.”
Meanwhile, the case against the parents involves various allegations and counter-accusations.
Read more: Protecting our children: A call to honour our commitment to future generations
At the time of their October arrests, a statement by Hawks spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Siyabulela Vukubi said that officers had been alerted to a woman who had escaped her “traffickers.”
“The investigation revealed that the victim was offered an employment contract to work for a couple overseas, but not long after her arrival, she was allegedly raped and sexually exploited by her employers,” the statement said.
“[A] search was conducted and two suspected traffickers were arrested. The couple’s two young children were removed and placed in the care of social workers from the Department of Social Development”.
The couple had applied for bail, but a magistrate had denied their release from custody.
They appealed against the failed bail application through the Western Cape Division of the High Court in Cape Town. A May 2025 decision granted each R50,000 bail.
That judgment contains other details about the case.
‘False allegations’ and credibility questions
The children’s father, 47, was South African and often worked abroad, including in Qatar and Dubai, while the mother, 38, was British and applying for permanent residence in this country.
She owned an events management company that was registered in Qatar and which she ran remotely from South Africa.
The mother and father had no previous convictions or pending matters against them.
“They deny all the allegations made by the complainant against them and intend pleading not guilty to all the charges,” the bail appeal judgment said.
“The appellants contend that the allegations are false, and that the allegations were made by a complainant whose credibility is wanting.”
According to the judgment, the 26-year-old complainant in the case had been employed by the couple.
The couple was of the view that she “is lying because she is resentful of having lost her job”.
The judgment said that the parents, during court processes, had allowed themselves to be cross-examined.
‘Happy moments’ and travel
“They further introduced documentary evidence in the form of WhatsApp messages and pictures from the complainant’s cellular phone, showing inter alia, the complainant’s happy moments with the first appellant in Dubai and other countries in Europe that include Portugal and Spain to demonstrate that the complainant was not kidnapped, and that her cellular phone and laptop were with her and she had free access to internet and moved around at will,” the judgment said.
The judgment said that it did not appear that the photographs had been disputed.
The parents had also used as evidence an employment contract, relating to a salaried personal assistant, that was terminated on 19 September 2024. (This was the month before they were arrested.)
Read more: Remote Scottish lodge reveals dark secrets: human trafficking and violence uncovered in court ruling
According to the bail appeal judgment: “[They] also submitted the so-called “sex contract” that was concluded with and signed by the complainant to illustrate that the complainant had consensual sex with the [children’s father].”
It said the parents had additionally provided evidence suggesting the complainant had travelled to and from South Africa during her employment with them.
They had paid the travel costs.
“One of such trips, as shown by the evidence, is when the complainant travelled from Qatar to Cape Town, where she underwent breast augmentation surgery paid for by the appellants,” the judgment stated.
Sister’s affidavit
The parents denied that the complainant was held against her will and produced nine witnesses to corroborate this.
An affidavit from the complainant’s sister stated she had stayed with the couple (along with her sibling) in South Africa and abroad in May 2024.
“She denies that her sister was kidnapped, harboured or raped,” the bail application judgment said.
As Child Protection Week 2025 draws to a close, Government calls on all South Africans to continue prioritising the protection and wellbeing of children throughout the year.#GovZAUpdates #ChildProtectionWeek2025 pic.twitter.com/WaOJgXsAbl
— @SAgovnews (@SAgovnews) June 5, 2025
The parents were of the opinion that the State’s case was weak.
As for their children, who are at the centre of this overall saga, the bail appeal judgment covered some aspects.
‘Children’s best interests’
It said the parents’ stance was that a man had previously abused their daughter and had gained access to her through a helper who had, as a result, since been dismissed.
The judgment stated: “It does not appear that this evidence was challenged.”
No criminal charges had been filed against the man. (It was unclear if this apparent abuse had happened in this country.)
The bail appeal judgment also said: “In my view, the present situation, where children as young as four months and five years are being removed from their mother in circumstances of this case, carries weight as exceptional circumstances that should have been considered.
“This is more so on the strength of the allegations made only by the complainant.”
Read more: SA’s alarming child violence rates demand collaboration between government and NGOs
In December last year, around two months after the parents were arrested, a “no contact order” was granted by the Children’s Court in Atlantis, meaning the parents would not have contact with the children.
It was after this, and after the parents were released on bail in May this year, that they managed to obtain the high court order effectively saying they could again have access to their children.
It is in this arena that the Western Cape Department of Social Development fits in.
In its response to Daily Maverick last week, it said that along with the designated child protection organisation, ACVV, it had not been “party to the appeal against the Children’s Court order” heard by the high court earlier this month.
It was now applying to the Supreme Court of Appeal to take on the high court finding that the parents may have access to their children.
The department said it was working closely with ACVV “to ensure the best interests of the children are upheld”. DM