Grindr Gang Trial: Survivor Stands Firm Against Defence Crossfire

The Johannesburg Magistrates Court was heavy with anticipation on Monday as the “Grindr Gang” trial entered its third day.

The tension in the courtroom was palpable as the survivor, visibly emotional, again relived the night of 19 September 2023, when he was lured to a fake date, tied up, assaulted, and used as leverage in ransom demands made to his family and friends.

This time, he faced a panel of defence attorneys who cross-examined him about his account of the events.

When the trial began last week, the survivor’s voice trembled, and he struggled to speak audibly. On Monday, while still nervous, he came across as more confident. He remained firm, standing by his answers even when the defence tried to misquote or confuse him.

The accused, Sanele Ndlovu, Vikani Khanyeza, Sohollo Khumalo, Sphamandla Mavundla, Lungisani Mshabalala, Thulani Mazibuko and Khayelihle Zulu, face four charges: kidnapping, extortion, attempted murder and theft.

Defence Questions the Survivor’s Recollection

During hours of cross-examination, the defence for accused 1, 2 and 3 questioned the survivor about his memory and identification of the men involved.

The defence suggested that the person behind the Grindr profile could have been using stolen photos.

“It’s possible for someone to use another person’s pictures,” the survivor acknowledged, “but the pictures I received were of accused number 2.”

He confirmed that he had never met the man in person before that night and could not recall the profile name used on the app.

“Whether it was his account or not, all I know is that the person who sent me the pictures was of accused 2,” he said.

The survivor said he had only begun speaking with the person earlier that same day and had told no one about the planned meeting.

“Grindr was new to me. I didn’t think of the risk when I went,” he said.

He confirmed receiving a WhatsApp message with the Bolt ride details, which took him to the area where he was abducted.

“I saw his face when I arrived”

Under cross-examination, the survivor maintained that he recognised the man who met him when the Bolt trip ended.

“When I got out, there was a bit of light. That’s how I could see that the person I was talking to was the one,” he said.

He again identified this person as accused 2, although he could not remember what the man was wearing.

The defence questioned why he had followed the man through a back entrance.

“I wasn’t suspicious,” the survivor replied. “He said he didn’t want people to see us.”

Lawyer for the three accused argued that accused 2, whom the survivor said had met him through Grindr and later welcomed him to the hostel, was not involved in the crime.

“Accused 2 denies sleeping and waking next to you,” said the defence.

The survivor responded firmly: “With my memory, the person I woke up next to was the person I spoke to and who welcomed me when I arrived.”

The defence stated that accused 2 lives in the hostel and would testify that he was not with the survivor on the night in question.

“Accused 2 denies kidnapping and attempting to extort money from your family,” the lawyer added.

The survivor maintained that the person who greeted him at the hostel and escorted him to the room was indeed accused 2.

Accused 4 Claims “Mistaken Identity”

Lawyers for accused 4 pressed the survivor on his recollection of the assault. The survivor repeated that the man who entered the room carrying a knife was accused 4, the same individual he said had punched, choked and threatened him.

“I identified accused 4 by his face,” he said. “He was the one carrying the knife and doing most of the talking, and that is why I remember him because I focused on him mostly.”

The defence for accused 4 argued that there had been a case of mistaken identity.

“Accused 4 will testify that he lives in one of the rooms at the hostel and did not see the survivor on the 19th or 20th of September,” said the lawyer.

The lawyer added dramatically, “The poor man was at work,” prompting murmurs of shock and disbelief from the gallery.

The survivor, however, maintained that he recognised accused 4 as his assailant.

“The person who had the knife and punched me, that’s the person I saw and focused on,” he said.

Defence Suggests Unreliable Memory

The defence of accused 4 questioned the survivor’s ability to recall the sequence of events two years after the ordeal and his head injury, pointing to inconsistencies between his written statement and oral testimony.

“There are some things I remember and others I don’t,” the survivor told the court. “But I know who I saw and who hurt me.”

He repeated that he was certain that accused 4 was the man who carried the knife and assaulted him.

The survivor said he could not recall who tied him up or when exactly he was blindfolded, though he remembered hearing the voices of several people in the room.

During questioning, the survivor confirmed that he overheard conversations among his captors about ransom demands.

“I remember hearing them say my family must send R30 000, and that they would hurt or kill me if they didn’t get the money,” he told the court.

He could not identify which accused made the calls or took the photographs that were sent to his family, explaining that he had been blindfolded for most of the ordeal.

Disputed Details

The defence for accused 5, 6 and 7 queried inconsistencies between the survivor’s written statement and oral testimony about the order in which he was blindfolded and tied up.

“In your statement, you said you were blindfolded and then tied up,” the defence for accused 5,6,7 explained. “Today in court, you are saying you aren’t sure which happened first. Can you see the inconsistencies in the two?”

The survivor reiterated that he was not sure which was done first and that when he explained his story, he explained what he remembered.

The defence also challenged his identification of the black jacket he said belonged to him that was worn by one of the accused, arguing that he could not recall the brand or distinctive marks. The survivor maintained that he recognised it as the same jacket he wore the night he was kidnapped.

Trial to Continue in the New Year

Civil-society groups, including Iranti, the Forum for the Empowerment of Women (FEW), Parents, Families and Friends of South African Queers (PFSAQ) and MambaOnline were once again in attendance to support the survivor and his family.

The court adjourned the trial to February 2026, when proceedings are expected to resume with the testimony of expert witnesses and the presentation of video evidence.