Gauteng father accused of sexually assaulting twin daughters fights to regain access - IOL

A Gauteng father accused of sexually assaulting his four-year-old twin daughters has failed in his urgent bid to force police to finalise their investigation, saying the ongoing probe has effectively suspended his parental rights and prevented him from having normal contact with his children.

Acting Judge D van den Bogert dismissed the man's application, finding that there was no evidence that the police had refused to investigate the allegations or deliberately delayed the investigation.

The father, who represented himself, approached the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria seeking an order compelling the Minister of Police to finalise the investigation into the alleged sexual assault within seven days and provide him with written confirmation of its outcome.

He also wanted the court to order that the primary residence, contact and care of his twin daughters be restored to him if the investigation was not completed within that period, or if the completed investigation showed that he should not be prosecuted.

The children, whose names have been withheld to protect them, were born in September 2022.

According to the judgment, the father and their mother began a romantic relationship in April 2020. The relationship ended in February 2025, although they attempted to reconcile until July that year.

The father left the shared home with the children in August 2025.

The dispute later escalated, with the mother approaching police and a criminal docket initially being opened against the father in connection with allegations that he had kidnapped his own children.

He was arrested on the kidnapping allegation in August 2025. However, after examining the docket, a prosecutor concluded that he could not have kidnapped his own children and that no crime had been committed. He was released without appearing in court.

The mother subsequently refused to hand over the children, according to the father's version.

He obtained an interim order from the Domestic Violence Court directing that the children be returned, but the judgment records that the mother allegedly refused to comply with the order.

The father also complained that police refused to assist in enforcing the order and declined to open a case of contempt against the mother.

The more serious dispute arose in July 2026, when the mother allegedly reported the father for sexually assaulting the children.

The judgment records that the children were examined on July 2 and that J88 forms were completed.

The father was subsequently told that he could not collect the children from school or take them on holiday and that he could only have contact with them through video calls at night.

He was also informed that the children would be assessed by a forensic social worker.

The father denied the sexual assault allegations.

He previously approached the High Court seeking, among other things, restoration of the children's primary residence, an order preventing further criminal complaints against him, protection from arrest and an order compelling the police to ensure that the children were assessed by a forensic social worker.

That application was dismissed, while the family advocate was ordered to investigate the children's circumstances and report on their best interests, including contact, care and permanent residence.

The father later returned to court, arguing that the police investigation had dragged on despite him being told that the outstanding forensic social work assessment would take about two weeks.

Police, however, told the court that the investigation remained active and had not been abandoned, neglected or unreasonably delayed.

According to the police, several investigative steps still had to be completed, including obtaining a report from the forensic social worker.

The police said the report was particularly important and that, without it, the investigation could not be finalised.

Because the children are Afrikaans-speaking, the investigation required the involvement of a particular forensic social worker, despite her being stationed at another police station.

The police further told the court that the investigation had been allocated to Sergeant Rhingani, rather than Captain Baloyi, who had initially undertaken investigative steps.

The court found that there was no evidence of a refusal by police to investigate, bad faith or an unreasonable failure to perform a public duty.

“Although the investigation is targeted at the applicant, the applicant has the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise,” the judge said.

The court acknowledged the difficult position in which the father found himself, noting that the investigation concerned his own children and that his parental rights had effectively been suspended for its duration.

The judge said the ongoing investigation had a direct impact on both the father and the children, who no longer had normal access to him.

However, the court rejected the father's demand that the investigation be completed within seven days.

The judge said there was no evidence before the court establishing what would constitute a reasonable period to complete an investigation of this nature and described the seven-day demand as unreasonable.

At the same time, the judge criticised the police for not providing greater clarity about the progress of the investigation.

“Given the plight of the applicant … one would have expected the respondent to tell this court how long, generally, these kinds of investigations take,” the judgment states.

The judge said an estimated date for the forensic social worker's report would also have provided greater clarity.

The court stressed that the police have a constitutional duty to investigate crime, but said courts cannot ordinarily dictate how or within what period a police investigation must be conducted.

According to the judgment, judicial intervention may be justified where there is clear evidence of a mala fide refusal by police to comply with their constitutional duty to investigate.

No such evidence was presented in this case.

The judge also found that the father had failed to join the children's mother as a party to the proceedings.

Because she is the mother and the children were in her care, the court found that she had a direct and substantial interest in the application, particularly the father's request for the children's residence and contact arrangements to be changed.

Her non-joinder was therefore fatal to part of the relief sought.

The court ultimately dismissed the application on two grounds: the mother's non-joinder and the principle of separation of powers, which prevented the court from directing the police on how and within what period to conduct the investigation.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.