- Child sex abuse ring kingpin Gerhard Ackerman has been found guilty of more than 720 charges including rape, human trafficking, sexual grooming of children, attempted murder and sexual exploitation of children.
- While handing down judgment, the court also pointed out Ackerman was a weak witness, whose defence had to be rejected.
- This because of his lies, contradictions and ever-changing version of events.
While finding child sex abuse ring kingpin Gerhard Ackerman guilty of more than 720 charges, the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg also heavily criticised him for lying under oath and the contradictions and changing versions in his defence.
In a 54-page judgment, handed down on Monday, Judge Mohamed Ismail was at pains not only to point out the overwhelming evidence against Ackerman but also that his many versions stood to be rejected.
The court found him guilty of hundreds of charges, most of which related to the unlawful possession of pornography and his running of a child sex abuse ring which he attempted to hide under the guise of running an above-board massage parlour in Johannesburg.
Ackerman was found guilty of:
- 639 counts of unlawful possession of child pornography.
- Two counts of creation of child pornography.
- Six counts of human trafficking.
- Four counts of benefitting from the services of a child victim of trafficking.
- Five counts of rape.
- Three counts of attempted murder.
- Eighteen counts of sexual grooming of children.
- Fourteen counts of sexual exploitation of children.
The court found he targeted vulnerable teenage boys between the ages of 14 and 16, recruiting them through Facebook, before trafficking them to his so-called massage parlour in Johannesburg.
Once the victims were there, Ackerman would then sexually groom them before making them perform sexual acts on his clients for payment.
He would find the clients and would discuss what the client wanted before fixing prices for the services.
Ackerman had defended his actions, remarking it was legal because the boys were 16 years old and had participated voluntarily.
READ | Child sex abuse trial: Gerhard Ackerman’s ever-changing version riddled with contradictions
“This is a disingenuous argument because he targeted these children, and he exploited their vulnerable state. Most of these children came from troubled homes and poor backgrounds,” Ismail said.
“The accused took advantage of their emotional state by offering them a place to stay where they could make money.”
Ackerman‘s defence
The main tune of Ackerman’s defence was nothing more than a bare denial against most of the charges.
However, on some of the charges, he did concoct versions which were often contradictory and appeared to change as he was confronted by more evidence during cross-examination by prosecutor advocate Valencia Dube.
In his judgment, Ismail noted how Ackerman contradicted himself on numerous aspects.
“The accused did not impress the court as a witness,” he said.
READ | How Gerhard Ackerman allegedly fronted Joburg massage parlour to run a child sex abuse ring
“He contradicted himself on numerous aspects. The most notable being that he told the boys that they were not to have sex as that was his golden rule.”
Yet in WhatsApp conversations, he spoke to clients about sexual intercourse with teenagers.
Another example of these contradictions and lies is how he initially stated he did not fix the prices, yet in a WhatsApp conversation, he told a client he was charging R1 200 for one boy or R2 000 for two to perform sexual acts.
Ismail also pointed out occasions where Ackerman was evasive.
“On other occasions, his answer to a question that had no bearing to the question resulting in the question being asked again.”
He said:
I can safely say that the accused evidence was so poor and contradictory that it should be rejected, save where it accords with the state’s evidence.
On the child pornography found on his cellphone and laptop, Ackerman also first denied its existence but then claimed someone else must have put the images and videos on his devices because he had never seen them.
He then later admitted to only downloading several images of naked boys, despite the videos and images being far more sexually offensive.
“The irresistible and logical inference is that the accused was aware of the images on his cellular phone and in my view he should be found guilty on these counts.
“The accused’s version that the boys had access to his computer, and they must have uploaded these images on his computer is so far- fetched that it be rejected.”
The case has been postponed to 18 July for sentencing.