People who charm, manipulate and deliberately distort the perceptions of their victims are posing a growing challenge to judges and magistrates handling gender-based violence (GBV) and sexual and domestic violence (SODV) cases.
Judge Maxine Langwenya has warned law enforcers about narcissists, saying they were the newest problem faced by courts trying to strengthen the fight against GBV.
Speaking at a magistrates’ dialogue on the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act, 2018, held at the Bethel Court yesterday, Judge Langwenya said perpetrators displaying narcissistic and manipulative traits could be particularly difficult to identify because of their ability to present themselves differently in private and in public.
She was presenting on Protection Orders in domestic violence cases, as well as domestic violence offences and penalties, when she highlighted the difficulties that courts may encounter when dealing with such perpetrators.
She said, more often than not, survivors of abuse, mainly women, experience violence at the hands of their intimate partners and report the abuse to the police. However, she said, the matter does not always proceed to court because perpetrators may manipulate their survivors into withdrawing or abandoning the cases.
According to Judge Langwenya, such individuals can be highly persuasive and may use their ability to influence the victim’s thinking and emotions to prevent the matter from being pursued.
She warned that the challenge becomes even greater once the parties appear in court because the alleged perpetrator may present an entirely different image to the court from the one experienced by the survivor in private. She said such individuals could appear to be among the nicest and kindest people on earth, making it difficult for outsiders to understand what may be happening behind closed doors.
“They can even dish out money to strangers or distant people when they never give any money to their wives,” she said.
She gave an example of perpetrators deliberately displaying affection towards their survivors in public in order to create a misleading impression among neighbours and members of the community.
According to her, an abusive partner may, for instance, hold the survivor’s hand in public and behave affectionately, creating the impression that the relationship is normal and loving.
The same behaviour, she said, could continue when the matter reaches court, where the accused or respondent may portray himself as calm, respectful and well behaved.
Judge Langwenya, therefore, cautioned judicial officers against being swayed by outward appearances, stressing the importance of probing beyond the behaviour presented in court.
She urged magistrates and judges to apply themselves carefully to the facts of each matter and to ask the necessary questions rather than relying solely on how parties conducted themselves before the court.
Her remarks highlighted emphasis on one of the most difficult challenges in GBV and SODV matters: distinguishing genuine conduct from behaviour deliberately designed to influence how a case is perceived.
“The SODV Act, for instance, took many years to pass and during this period, a lot of things had changed. When the law was drafted, the issue of narcissism was not there, but when it was passed we were faced with it,” she said.
She lamented the lengthy process through which some Bills pass before becoming law, saying legislation can sometimes be overtaken by developments in society before it is finally enacted.
Her observation highlighted the need for legal practitioners and judicial officers to continuously engage with emerging forms of abuse and manipulation as they interpret and apply existing laws.
Her warning was echoed by Judge Faith Ng’andu, who told participants that appearances can also be deceptive when determining who the actual victim is in a GBV or SODV dispute.
Judge Ng’andu said the person who arrives in court first, or the one who makes the loudest allegations, is not necessarily the victim.
She said she had dealt with a number of SODV and GBV cases in which further probing revealed that the person who had rushed to court to seek a protection order was, in fact, the perpetrator.
She emphasised the importance of judicial scrutiny in protection-order proceedings, particularly where competing allegations are made by parties to a relationship.
For courts, the challenge is, therefore not only to hear the allegations presented, but also to carefully examine the circumstances surrounding them, identify inconsistencies and assess the evidence before reaching conclusions about who requires protection and what legal remedies are appropriate.
The dialogue brought together magistrates, law practitioners, law-enforcement officers and stakeholders working on gender and children’s issues. Facilitators included Lesotho Magistrate Puseletso McPherson, Judge Faith Ng’andu and officers from the deputy prime minister’s office.
The engagement provided a platform for participants to reflect on the practical challenges encountered in implementing the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act, 2018, including the issuing and enforcement of protection orders and the handling of domestic violence offences.
It was said that judges and magistrates should remain alert to the possibility that both victims and perpetrators may present themselves in ways that do not immediately reveal the reality of what has happened, making careful questioning, close examination of evidence and a thorough understanding of the circumstances essential to ensuring justice.
