South Africa has spent years strengthening its response to gender-based violence and femicide, from legislation and national strategies to new government structures and funding commitments. Yet the killing of nine women in Ekurhuleni over the past two months has again exposed the gap between those commitments and the reality women face.

Three suspects — two women and a man — were arrested over the weekend in connection with the murder of the ninth victim, Jabulile Ntimba. Ntimba's body was found in Dawn Park, Boksburg, on September 17.

Police said it appears that Ntimba's death may have stemmed from a "relationship-related matter." They have not yet established whether the other killings were committed by the same person or group. Investigators are examining possible links between the cases.

On September 21, police also said another woman's body was found in Soweto over the previous weekend. Deputy National Police Commissioner Tebello Mosikili said police are investigating the case as part of a broader effort to understand the recent killings, but authorities cautioned against drawing conclusions about whether the cases are connected.

The developments have renewed scrutiny of South Africa's response to gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF), particularly after the government classified GBVF as a national disaster in November 2025.

The classification was presented as a way to give the crisis greater urgency and strengthen coordination across government. Nearly a year later, the question is whether that change in status has translated into meaningful changes in the lives of women.

What did the national disaster classification mean?

The National Disaster Management Centre classified gender-based violence and femicide as a national disaster under Section 23 of the Disaster Management Act. It did not place the country under a national state of disaster.

Under the Act, the classification meant the national executive assumed primary responsibility for coordinating and managing the disaster, using existing legislation and contingency arrangements across government. The government said the move would bring together structures including the Inter-Ministerial Committee on GBVF, the National Joint Operational and Intelligence Structure priority committee and other government mechanisms.

The distinction matters because a national state of disaster under Section 27 is a separate legal step. It can be declared when existing legislation and contingency arrangements are inadequate to deal effectively with a disaster and gives the government additional powers to introduce regulations or directions and take other measures.

What has changed since last November?

There have been several developments.

In December 2025, the Cabinet approved a program of action on GBVF covering prevention, law enforcement, protection and justice, survivor support, communication and institutional arrangements.

The plan includes strengthening specialized GBV services within police stations, expanding victim-friendly facilities and improving coordination between institutions.

In July 2026, President Cyril Ramaphosa appointed members of the National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide, a statutory body established to provide strategic leadership and coordinate the implementation of the national GBVF strategy across national, provincial and local government. The government also launched the country's first femicide review pilot in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape.

The review is not a criminal investigation. Instead, it is intended to examine individual cases to identify institutional

A declaration is not the same as change

Naledi Joyi of the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) said the classification was important because it acknowledged the scale and seriousness of GBVF. But she said it should not be mistaken for evidence that conditions for women had changed.

“The declaration should therefore be understood as a starting point, not an outcome,” Joyi said.

She pointed to developments since November, including the program of action and the femicide review pilot, as mechanisms that could help the government identify where systems are failing.

But the measure of progress, she said, should ultimately be what women experience when they interact with those systems.

“If a woman is still unable to get help when she reports violence, if she still has to navigate multiple institutions to access support, if her previous reports of violence are not taken seriously, or if she is killed despite having interacted with the system, then we have to ask whether the response is reaching women in the places and ways that matter,” Joyi said.

That means looking beyond the number of policies, programs and institutions created.

Prevention, Joyi said, cannot be reduced to awareness campaigns launched after another woman has been killed. Policing cannot only begin once violence has occurred. Justice cannot be measured simply by the existence of legislation, and survivor support is not meaningful if services remain difficult to access.

The challenge, she said, is to intervene early enough to prevent violence.

Why does femicide persist?

South Africa's National Strategic Plan on GBVF has existed for years, but implementation has remained a central concern.

Joyi said one of the biggest problems was the gap between government commitments and what happens in practice.

"The response to GBVF cannot sit with one department," she said. "Because violence against women intersects with policing and justice, as well as health, social development, education, housing, employment and broader economic conditions."

She also pointed to prevention as a major gap.

South Africa has often focused on responding to violence after it happens, while giving less sustained attention to the social conditions that allow violence to become normalized. That includes gender norms, power dynamics, masculinities and inequality.

Femicide, she said, should also be examined in the context of what happened before a woman was killed.

Was there a history of intimate partner violence? Were threats made? Had she sought help? Had police or another institution previously been involved? Were there opportunities to intervene?

Those questions are central to the femicide review pilot because its purpose is not only to examine the circumstances of a death but also to identify possible institutional failures and missed opportunities for prevention.

Joyi also cautioned against placing responsibility for prevention on women themselves.

Women are often advised to avoid travelling alone, stay in groups, remain vigilant or change their behavior to reduce their risk. But those measures cannot become the primary response to violence.

“The responsibility for preventing violence has to sit with society and institutions as a whole, including with men and boys and with the institutions that are meant to protect women,” she said.

The implementation problem

The national strategic plan provides a framework for addressing GBVF, but implementation requires clear responsibilities, resources, coordination and accountability.

Joyi said the government must be able to answer basic questions about its response: who was responsible for implementing a commitment, what resources were available, what was actually done and what happened when something was not implemented.

Without that level of accountability, she said, new strategies risk becoming additional documents rather than mechanisms for change.

A joint inquiry announced in July by South Africa's Chapter 9 institutions is also examining failures in the justice system's response to GBVF. Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities said concerns include delays in processing cases, mishandling or loss of evidence and insensitive treatment of survivors.

The inquiry is expected to provide further scrutiny of how institutions respond to women seeking justice.

What women experience

For women living with the threat of violence, government structures can feel far removed from everyday decisions about whether it is safe to leave home.

Anita Malunga said the recent killings have left women fearful of ordinary activities.

“We are living in fear. Actually, this is not considered living. We are scared to leave our homes and do anything. We are too scared to go to campus, to do groceries and we are even scared to go to the gym,” she said.

Women are frequently advised to avoid being alone, walk in groups and remain vigilant.

“We are told not to be alone, to walk in groups, do everything in groups, be vigilant and to stay away from the killer, but how are we supposed to know who the killer is?” she said.

Zukiswa Mdlalose, who uses public transport daily, said the fear extends to commuting.

“I don't feel safe at all. I use public transport on a daily basis and I have to be alert from the moment I leave my doorstep. Being a woman in South Africa feels like constantly having to stay ready,” she said.

Mdlalose said the government should increase police visibility in secluded areas, improve response times and invest in the availability of police vehicles. She also suggested partnerships with private security companies to increase security presence and armed response.

Her suggestions reflect a familiar tension in the GBVF debate: women want greater protection from the state, but experts argue that lasting prevention requires more than increasing security after violence has already occurred.

For South Africa, the latest killings come at a moment when the government has more formal mechanisms for dealing with GBVF than it did before the national disaster classification.

There is now a program of action, a statutory national council, a femicide review pilot and an emergency strategy for the Ekurhuleni killings. The government has also demonstrated that it can rapidly increase police resources and coordinate multiple agencies when a crisis demands it.

But those measures will ultimately be judged by whether they prevent violence rather than simply respond to it.

For Joyi, that requires a broader approach that addresses gender norms, power, economic inequality and the normalization of violence while ensuring that institutions respond effectively when women seek help.

“Ultimately, I think the measure of our response should be very simple: Are women safer? Are survivors better supported? Are institutions being held accountable? And are we actually changing the conditions that reproduce violence?” she said.

That question is particularly stark for South African women who have learned to factor the possibility of violence into ordinary decisions.

As a South African, I remember a time when reports emerged of women being kidnapped and raped in minibus taxis. When I had to use public transport, I would count how many men were inside before getting in. If there were more men than women, I would wait for another taxi.

On one occasion, I got out before my stop after realizing that all the other women had already left the taxi. It meant paying more to get home safely.

That is the gap between a national response on paper and the lived reality of women.

South Africa has declared GBVF a national disaster. The harder test is whether women can eventually stop organizing their lives around the fear of becoming its next victim.