Nearly seven women are killed by an intimate partner every day, a figure that has remained unchanged since 2009, placing South Africa among the countries with the highest femicide rates in the world. At the same time, more than 100,000 girls between the ages of 10 and 19 gave birth in 2024, including 2,000 children aged 10 to 14, even though children under 16 cannot legally consent to sex. These realities reflect deeply entrenched gender inequality, violence, and the systematic erosion of bodily autonomy. They expose a deeper truth: what is often framed as consent is shaped, and frequently distorted, by power.

The right to decide what is done to one's body lies at the core of human dignity, freedom from violence, and bodily and psychological integrity. Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol, which South Africa ratified in December 2004, affirms these protections. Still, consent cannot be reduced to a simple "yes" or "no." It is a clear, voluntary, and enthusiastic agreement to engage in a specific act, given without pressure, force, manipulation, or intimidation, and it can be withdrawn at any time. Crucially, however, consent does not occur in a vacuum. It is shaped by power, vulnerability, and whether the surrounding environment allows for genuine choice. Where inequality, coercion, or fear operate, even subtly, what looks like agreement may not be consent at all.

In South Africa, this reality plays out in stark and measurable ways. High rates of gender-based violence, sexual assault, and teenage pregnancy reveal how often consent is undermined or ignored. For many young girls, "consent" is negotiated in silence, in classrooms, homes, and relationships where saying no carries consequences. The widespread underreporting of these violations, particularly among vulnerable groups, further underscores that consent cannot be assumed in contexts marked by inequality and fear.

South African law recognises this complexity. The amended Sexual Offences Act of 2021 defines consent as a voluntary and uncoerced agreement, explicitly stating that force, intimidation, threats, or deception render sexual acts involuntary. It further acknowledges that the abuse of power or authority can inhibit a person's ability to refuse, thereby invalidating consent. The Domestic Violence Amendment Act of 2021 further expands protections by recognising coercive control as a form of abuse.

These legal developments reflect a broader understanding: consent cannot be separated from the conditions under which it is given. South Africa's legal history illustrates how distorted notions of consent have long been embedded in both law and society. Until 1993, husbands were exempted from prosecution for rape or sexual violence against their wives, a legal fiction that treated marriage as permanent consent. Although the Prevention of Family Violence Act of 1993 abolished that exemption, its legacy persists in harmful social beliefs that continue to shape attitudes toward sex and gender. The shadows of these myths persist, with many still believing that marriage creates a duty of consent, revealing how deeply law and social norms remain intertwined.

Similarly, the decision in S v Zuma permitted the cross-examination of a complainant's sexual history as evidence of consent, reinforcing prejudicial assumptions about women's credibility and sexual behaviour. The law has since been amended to render such evidence inadmissible and irrelevant.

More recent jurisprudence has sought to correct these misconceptions. In Makhanda v Coko (2024), the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned a High Court ruling that implied consent to one sexual act could extend to another, affirming that consent must be specific, ongoing, and independently established. The idea that silence implies agreement or that lack of resistance equals consent continues to distort public understanding, particularly among young people who lack the knowledge, confidence, or safety to assert their boundaries.

Power dynamics operate in relationships and society whenever one person holds significantly more power than another. This imbalance may be rooted in age, gender, economic dependence, social status, or authority. In such contexts, agreement is often shaped by fear, survival, or obligation rather than genuine choice. Even in the absence of overt coercion, unequal power makes refusal feel impossible. This is especially true in relationships such as teacher-learner or employer-employee, where the imbalance is so profound that consent is inherently compromised. In these contexts, the law and ethics are clear: those in positions of authority carry a responsibility never to exploit vulnerability or trust.

Consent, then, is not merely a legal concept. It is a question of safety, dignity, equality, and freedom from fear. True consent requires conditions in which individuals, particularly those most vulnerable, can refuse without risking violence, punishment, ridicule, or loss of support. Addressing this requires more than legal reform. Young people must be equipped to recognise coercion, grooming, and manipulation and understand their rights. Communities, schools, and institutions must challenge the norms that enable abuse and silence survivors. The Government must move beyond commitments and accelerate implementation, while the National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (2020–2030) cannot remain aspirational. It must translate into comprehensive sexuality education, adequately funded survivor-centred services, and sustained public engagement.

Until power is addressed, consent will remain a legal concept denied in lived reality.

As the global community marks the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence, the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) is proud to launch a bold public-engagement initiative under the banner: "What Does Justice for GBV Mean for You?" This initiative invites South Africans—and Africans across the continent to reflect, engage, and contribute to a deeper, more inclusive understanding of what justice truly means for survivors, families, and communities affected by gender-based violence and violence against women and girls in particular.

The campaign aims to expand the justice perceptions beyond the courtroom, challenging the narrow assumption that justice is achieved only through convictions. Instead, CSVR's campaign encourages society to consider the full spectrum of justice:

• Social Justice – dismantling the harmful norms, inequalities, and power dynamics that sustain violence.

• Psychosocial and Healing Justice – ensuring survivors and their families receive sustained mental health, trauma, and emotional support.

• Livelihoods and Economic Justice – addressing the economic drivers and consequences of GBV, including poverty, unemployment, and economic dependency.

• Safety and Protection Justice – guaranteeing that communities, schools, public spaces, and homes are places of safety.

• Transformative Justice – transforming institutions, structures and systems at all levels to prevent violence, respond effectively, and uphold survivor dignity.

A Conversation on Justice

With the question "What Does Justice for GBV Mean for You?", CSVR seeks to spark a multi-layered national and continental conversation that recognises that:

• For many survivors, justice is the experience of being heard, believed, and treated with dignity.

• For families, justice means safety, protection, empowerment and long-term psychosocial support.

• For communities, justice means breaking the silence, confronting stigma, and addressing harmful social norms.

• For institutions, justice requires timely, accessible, and survivor-centred services, free from secondary trauma or bureaucratic barriers.

By amplifying these diverse perspectives, the campaign highlights the reality that justice is not a single event, but a continuous process of healing, safety, and transformation.

Justice Beyond the Criminal Justice System

While the criminal justice system remains essential, CSVR's research and programmatic interventions consistently demonstrate that justice is broader than just criminal justice

outcomes. Survivors repeatedly express that justice includes:

• Receiving compassion, respect, and being trusted.

• Access to quality MHPSS services.

• Reintegration into supportive families and communities.

• Economic empowerment and opportunities that allow them to rebuild their lives.

• Living in a society where violence is prevented – not tolerated, justified, or ignored.

This holistic understanding of justice reflects CSVR's core mission of addressing not only the symptoms of violence but also the deep structural and social drivers that sustain it.

CSVR's Commitment During the 16 Days of Activism

Throughout this period, CSVR will roll out a series of activities designed to deepen public reflection, expand knowledge, and strengthen collective responsibility, including:

• The Justice Op-Ed Series: Expert analyses, survivor reflections, and insights on justice, healing, and prevention.

• Interactive Online Platforms: Tools for communities to share their perspectives on what justice looks like in their own lives and local contexts.

• Engagement with policymakers and institutions to highlight gaps, advocate for survivor-centred reforms, and strengthen accountability.

These interventions reflect CSVR's unwavering commitment to trauma-informed Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Services (MHPSS, community resilience, evidence-based advocacy, and the advancement of justice systems that uphold the dignity and wellbeing of all survivors.

A Call to Action

CSVR calls on all partners – government actors, civil society, researchers, traditional leaders, private sector partners, and community structures to join us in ensuring that justice becomes a lived reality, not merely a legal aspiration.

Despite post-apartheid progress, racial and social divisions remain. Economic privilege still aligns with race, restricting opportunities. High youth unemployment and exclusion deepen inequality and fuel unrest. Historical grievances and mistrust between groups hinder reconciliation and limit youth-led peacebuilding efforts. Though apartheid officially ended in 1994, its legacy continues to shape South Africa's cultural and social realities particularly impacting Black South African youth. A critical gap after transition has been that South Africa lacks sustainable funding, institutional support, and consistent policies to enable youth participation in peacebuilding.

Historical Background

In 1948,  the South African National Party government imposed apartheid, meaning 'apartness' in Afrikaans, a legal system built to uphold white supremacy by systematically disenfranchising the Black African majority, along with minority Coloured and Indian communities. The apartheid regime entrenched severe racial inequalities, with marginalised communities forcibly removed into impoverished townships and so-called "homelands" or Bantustans, which stripped Black South Africans of participating as active citizens under the guise of self-governance.

The regime actively sought to suppress indigenous cultures by banning native languages in schools and enforcing Afrikaans as the primary medium of instruction. Despite the violent repression, these circumstances sparked a cultural renaissance among Black South Africans, who turned to art, music, and literature as forms of resistance. South African youth played a pivotal role in resisting apartheid, mobilising mass protests and driving the movement that ultimately dismantled the regime.

In 1960s Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), led by Steve Bantu Biko, played a pivotal role in redefining African identity, fostering cultural pride, and challenging systemic injustices. It empowered young South Africans to resist apartheid through cultural and political activism. Also, resistance movements gained momentum, with movements such as the African National Congress (ANC) and Pan African Congress (PAC) led by leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe, respectively.

These movements led efforts to dismantle apartheid. Collectively, these efforts resulted in the 1976 Soweto Uprising which saw students protesting against Afrikaans as the medium of instruction, marking a pivotal moment in youth-led resistance.

Nelson Mandela elected as the first democratic president in 1994, South Africa began a journey towards reconciliation and nation-building through initiatives such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).The TRC documented human rights abuses by all parties during apartheid, prioritising restorative justice over punishment. It aimed to uncover the truth, promote healing, and grant amnesty for full disclosure.

Most violence occurred in KwaZulu-Natal between 1990 and 1994, with young men aged thirteen to thirty-six as primary victims. Sexual abuse affected both genders. Though symbolically significant, the TRC had limited effect on structural inequality and failed to provide full reparations.

Despite these efforts, challenges persist. Many remnants of past inequality remain entrenched within social, economic and political structures, prohibiting the complete transition from past to present for many South Africans.

Contemporary Youth Resilience

In March 2015, Rhodes Must Fall movement was a student-led protest at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, demanding the removal of Cecil Rhodes' statue, seen as a symbol of colonialism and racism. On 9 April, the university removed the statue, marking a stand against white supremacy and institutional inequality.

In October 2015, Fees Must Fall a student-led protest  movement emerged in South Africa, calling for free higher education and decolonised curricula. Starting at the University of the Witwatersrand, it spread nationwide, reflecting youth activism for socio-economic justice and continuing the fight against systemic inequality.

Social media platforms empower South African youth to voice concerns, mobilise communities, and push for justice. Movements like Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall show how digital tools drive unity and influence policy change.

Youth Participation in Peacebuilding, Policy-making and Governance

Although youth form a large part of South Africa's population, their involvement in governance remains limited. Initiatives aim to boost participation in local decision-making, elections, and leadership programmes. Policymakers and organisations work to embed youth perspectives in governance, helping to create a more inclusive and forward-looking society.

South Africa  launched the Youth Peace Mediators Mentoring Programme in partnership with Finland. This initiative equips young peacebuilders with practical tools for conflict resolution, mediation, and post-conflict reconstruction. It aligns with UN Security Council Resolution 2250 and the African Union's Agenda 2063, both of which advocate for youth inclusion in peace processes.

Most South African youth lack the skills and confidence for peacebuilding without mentorship and empowerment. The education system often fails to provide tools for conflict resolution, yet many young people remain keen to engage in community initiatives that promote peace and reduce violence.

Recommendation to enhance youth involvement in peacebuilding.

To effectively enhance youth involvement in peacebuilding, the Government must adopt a policy that addresses socioeconomic inequalities, empowers young people through targeted training and mentorship, fosters meaningful intergenerational dialogue, integrates peace education into school curricula, and promotes restorative justice. Furthermore, supporting youth-led media and platforms ensures their voices and solutions are visible, valued, and central to building lasting peace.