, CPR3701
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2
2026
DUE 31 AUGUST 2026
1. Whether X may be charged by a South African court (7 marks)
Yes, X may be charged by a South African court. The alleged offences—involvement in a failed coup
and the execution of over 200 civilians—fall within the ambit of South Africa's extraterritorial
jurisdiction, specifically concerning crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The authority conferring jurisdiction is the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002. Section 4(3) of this Act vests South African courts with jurisdiction
over crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This applies when the
alleged perpetrator is a South African citizen, is ordinarily resident in South Africa, or is present in
the country after the commission of the offence. The National Director of Public Prosecutions
(NDPP) must provide written authorisation to institute the prosecution (Joubert, 2020:43).
X's status as a former South African soldier means he is a South African citizen. He is currently
residing in a villa in Cape Town. As a citizen present in the Republic, X falls squarely within the
category of persons who can be prosecuted for these grave international crimes in South Africa
(Joubert, 2020:43). The fact that the crimes were committed in Zamunda is irrelevant, as the Act
explicitly provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction in these instances (Joubert, 2020:43-44).
2. X's "contention" regarding the lapse of the right to prosecute (4 marks)
X's contention that the right to prosecute has lapsed under section 18 of the Criminal Procedure
Act 51 of 1977 is fundamentally flawed.
Section 18 provides that the right to prosecute lapses after 20 years from the time the offence was
committed. However, the section explicitly creates an exception for "the crimes of genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes (as contemplated in section 4 of the Implementation of
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002)" (Joubert, 2020:80). There is
no prescription period for these crimes.
Therefore, even if X was directly involved in the alleged execution of the victims in 1999, more than
20 years have passed; the state can still prosecute him. The exception listed in section 18 prevents
the right to prosecute from lapsing for the specific offences that X is alleged to have committed
(Joubert, 2020:80).
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2
2026
DUE 31 AUGUST 2026
1. Whether X may be charged by a South African court (7 marks)
Yes, X may be charged by a South African court. The alleged offences—involvement in a failed coup
and the execution of over 200 civilians—fall within the ambit of South Africa's extraterritorial
jurisdiction, specifically concerning crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The authority conferring jurisdiction is the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002. Section 4(3) of this Act vests South African courts with jurisdiction
over crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This applies when the
alleged perpetrator is a South African citizen, is ordinarily resident in South Africa, or is present in
the country after the commission of the offence. The National Director of Public Prosecutions
(NDPP) must provide written authorisation to institute the prosecution (Joubert, 2020:43).
X's status as a former South African soldier means he is a South African citizen. He is currently
residing in a villa in Cape Town. As a citizen present in the Republic, X falls squarely within the
category of persons who can be prosecuted for these grave international crimes in South Africa
(Joubert, 2020:43). The fact that the crimes were committed in Zamunda is irrelevant, as the Act
explicitly provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction in these instances (Joubert, 2020:43-44).
2. X's "contention" regarding the lapse of the right to prosecute (4 marks)
X's contention that the right to prosecute has lapsed under section 18 of the Criminal Procedure
Act 51 of 1977 is fundamentally flawed.
Section 18 provides that the right to prosecute lapses after 20 years from the time the offence was
committed. However, the section explicitly creates an exception for "the crimes of genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes (as contemplated in section 4 of the Implementation of
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002)" (Joubert, 2020:80). There is
no prescription period for these crimes.
Therefore, even if X was directly involved in the alleged execution of the victims in 1999, more than
20 years have passed; the state can still prosecute him. The exception listed in section 18 prevents
the right to prosecute from lapsing for the specific offences that X is alleged to have committed
(Joubert, 2020:80).
