Daughters of the revolution: legal narrativity in S v Zuma

Abstract

While the social and political significance of President Jacob Zuma’s trial for rape in 2006 has been well-explored, its legal relevance has largely been passed over. Yet, the trial is important both for how it lays bare the mundane, naturalised operations of the law applicable to rape – and simultaneously illustrates how this regime of truth was called into question. A number of authors have already pointed to the rape myths, or discursive practices, relied upon to reach the final decision in S v Zuma. Yet, the mere fact of these myths’ existence is insufficient to ensure their success. Taking the trial as its example, and drawing on theories of legal narrativity, this article investigates how the structure and sequencing of witness testimony, coupled with the development of the complainant’s character in very particular ways, shaped judicial evaluations of plausibility. Close attention to how ‘the rape victim’ is actively constituted in and through the law points to the disciplinary and normalising effects of rape trials. Attention to legal story-telling as a discursive practice, especially in contexts where events seem ambiguous and open to interpretation, is as important as law reform to improving the experiences of rape complainants in court and allowing for the transformation of dominant discourses about rape.