Court clears Stellenbosch student in urination case, igniting race and justice debate

Key topics:Du Toit found not guilty, no racist intent provenCourt accepted alcohol-induced blackout as key evidenceCase reignites debate over racism, media, and due process.Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.The auditorium doors will open for BNIC#2 on 10 September 2025 in Hermanus. For more information and tickets, click here..By Kerry Lanaghan.Former Stellenbosch University student Theuns du Toit has been found not guilty in a Western Cape court over charges related to the 2022 urination incident at Huis Marais residence. The case, which sparked nationwide outrage and was initially cast as a racially motivated attack, has now been brought to a controversial and thought-provoking close.The saga began in the early hours of 15 May 2022, when Du Toit, then a white first-year student, entered the unlocked residence room of Babalo Ndwayana, a black student, and urinated on his desk and laptop. A video clip of the incident, filmed by a passerby at the scene, quickly went viral, drawing massive condemnation and igniting protests across the Stellenbosch campus.Du Toit was immediately suspended and later expelled by Stellenbosch University. The incident was widely characterised as racist, based mainly on initial statements by student organisations, social media outrage, and media coverage. An online petition, citing an unverified claim that Du Toit said, “this is what we do to black boys,” gathered tens of thousands of signatures. Political figures, including Cabinet members and student leaders, issued strong condemnations.Yet, critical details later emerged that complicated the popular narrative. A report by Politicsweb editor James Myburgh highlighted inconsistencies in the portrayal of the incident and emphasised a lack of direct evidence of racist intent.According to testimony and evidence reviewed during the university disciplinary hearing and later in court, Du Toit had consumed excessive amounts of alcohol before the incident, including at least half a bottle of brandy and multiple double brandy-and-coke mixes at local bars. Friends testified that he had “blacked out” for much of the night and had no recollection of entering the room or urinating on Ndwayana’s belongings.Crucially, the disciplinary committee accepted that Du Toit and Ndwayana had previously been on friendly terms and that Du Toit had no known history of racism. The committee also confirmed that the widely circulated quote attributed to Du Toit, “This is what we do to black boys”, was never uttered and that Ndwayana declined to testify during the university’s proceedings.Despite this, Du Toit was found guilty of racism by the university based on a remark allegedly made during the incident, where he may have said “white boy thing.” This, combined with his continued urination after the lights were turned on, was deemed evidence of racial intent. He was expelled, and the ruling was sent to Justice Sisi Khampepe, leading a broader inquiry into racism at the institution.However, the recent court case, in which Du Toit faced potential criminal charges, offered a more thorough forensic analysis. The court reviewed the possibility of parasomnia, or alcohol-induced sleepwalking, as an explanation. Experts and legal arguments pointed to Du Toit’s state of unconsciousness and his amnesia surrounding the event as key evidence undermining wilful intent.The Freedom Front Plus released a statement on 27 May 2025, highlighting that there has been no credible evidence of racist motivation and no corroborated racial statements from Du Toit. This led to the court’s dismissal of the charges, and Du Toit was found not guilty.This verdict has reopened debate about how institutions and the public should respond to incidents involving complex social dynamics, particularly when race is perceived as a factor. Critics of the university’s process argue that Du Toit was scapegoated amid a rush to present a zero-tolerance stance on racism, even in the absence of tested evidence. Others maintain that the symbolic impact of the incident, regardless of intent, justified the strong reaction.The case also highlights the power and risks of viral social media justice. Du Toit was widely vilified before any formal inquiry had concluded. He was expelled, nationally shamed, and labelled a racist, mainly based on assumptions and an unverified narrative. The spread of the video online, while initially seen as a necessary act of exposure, is now raising ethical questions about consent, dignity, and due process.Stellenbosch University has not yet issued a new statement following the court ruling.As South Africa continues to confront the legacies and realities of racial injustice, the Du Toit case is a stark reminder of the need for institutions and the public to tread carefully, balancing the imperative to oppose racism with the duty to uphold fairness, context, and the presumption of innocence.

Court clears Stellenbosch student in urination case, igniting race and justice debate

Related Stories

SA's Competition Commission has become a handbrake on the economy: Rob Rose

FT on James Orr: Cambridge theologian building Reform UK’s intellectual scaffolding

No property rights, no growth: Why Pretoria must lose its expropriation case

AI should not decide who gets a social grant: lessons from a South African court case