- Cheryl Zondi accused controversial Nigerian pastor Timothy Omotoso of sexual assault
- This week Cheryl was forced to present her case to open court
- Cheryl was forced to answer four harrowing questions asked by what can only be described as a hostile team of defence lawyers
Cheryl Zondi has been lauded by South Africans for her bravery in bringing sexual assault charges against controversial Nigerian pastor Timothy Omotoso. Cheryl claims Omotoso abused her in his Durban-based church.
Omotoso also stands accused of sexually assaulting and abusing young girls who he groomed as sex slaves before abusing them while the girls were still in their early teens. On Tuesday, Cheryl bravely took to the witness box to give a brave and detailed account of her experience.
Omotoso hired the notoriously ruthless defence attorney Peter Daubermann to make his case in court. Daubermann unleased a brutal line of questioning on Cheryl.
Briefly.co.za gathered that at one point Judge Mandela Makaula stopped Daubermann because he was badgering Cheryl. His line of questioning has drawn severe criticism from both the media and law experts.
We look at four of the most shocking questions Daubermann asked Cheryl on Tuesday.
1. By how many centimetres did Omotoso penetrate you?
Yes, Daubermann actually used those exact words in a South African court and expected an answer from the witness. While it might seem unbelievable thesouthafrican.com reports it really did happen.
2. Why didn’t you phone or ask for help?
Incredibly, Daubermann asked Cheryl why she didn’t phone someone or just up and leave after she had delivered a harrowing account of the mental hold which Omotoso had over her. This hold is common among abuse victims.
3. Why didn’t you ask him to stop?
Dauberman went into full attack mode after Cheryl admitted that she never asked the pastor to stop abusing her. Daubermann seemed ignorant of the fact that sexual predators aren’t the types of people who usually stop because they are asked. His continued badgering of Cheryl led the Judge to mercifully intervene and stop the absurd line of questioning.
4. Giving Consent
Daubermann said: “You basically consented? You didn’t protest against him? Every time you went to his room, you knew what to do?” This absurd line doesn’t take into concertation that Cheryl was 14-years-old at the time of the alleged abuse.
Any law student and most reasonable South Africans will be quick to point out that 14-year-olds are not capable of giving legal consent in sexual matters. Daubermann seemed to take Cheryl’s not protesting as meaning the same as giving consent.
Do you have a story to share with Briefly? Visit our Facebook page where you can send us a message or leave us a comment. Your story could be shared online.
For more amazing, funny and informative videos, please visit Briefly South Africa's YouTube Channel.