Thabo Bester challenges constitutional right to ‘presumption of innocence’ in High Court
Convicted fugitive and rapist Thabo Bester has filed an application with the Johannesburg High Court, seeking clarity on whether his constitutional right to be presumed innocent remains intact
The application was confirmed in a press statement issued today, 15 November 2025 by his legal representatives, Morero & Mocketsi Inc. The firm has moved to correct what it calls “inaccurate and misleading reports” circulating on social media.
Contrary to online speculation, the statement clarifies that the application is not primarily about Bester’s prison conditions. Instead, the core issue is a legal argument concerning Section 35(3)(h) of the South African Constitution, which guarantees every accused person the right to be presumed innocent.
The central question Bester’s legal team appears to be posing to the court is whether this fundamental right persists for an individual who has already been convicted of a crime.
In Bester’s case, he was convicted and sentenced for the 2012 rape and murder of his model girlfriend, Nomfundo Tyhulu. He later made a dramatic escape from Mangaung Correctional Centre prison in May 2022 after faking his own death in a cell fire, leading to a highly publicised manhunt and his subsequent recapture.
His lawyers argue that references to his prison conditions in the court papers are merely “incidental” context for the main constitutional argument.
The statement also expressed “serious concern” over what it described as speculative commentary published online before the court application was even officially issued, warning that this could cause “potential prejudice.
Given the high-profile nature of Bester’s crimes and audacious escape, the case has captivated and horrified the South African public. This new legal challenge is expected to draw significant attention and could set a notable precedent regarding the interpretation of constitutional rights for convicted persons.
His legal team has stated it will not comment further on the merits of the application as the matter is now sub judice.