A rape survivor can do everything the system asks of her. She can report the crime, undergo an invasive medical examination, give a statement, and wait for the police to investigate. The evidence can be collected and sent away for testing.

Then it can sit there for years.

That is the part of South Africa’s DNA backlog that statistics do not properly capture. We speak about exhibit entries, turnaround times, and laboratory capacity. For the person waiting, the issue is much simpler. Will the evidence in my case ever be tested, and will the person who attacked me ever be held accountable?

Recent parliamentary replies reveal that the South African Police Service (SAPS) has 298 710 DNA exhibit entries on hand. Of these, 228 017 have exceeded the applicable 90-day timeframe. Their average age is around 800 days, and the oldest have reportedly been outstanding for more than eight years.

These are exhibit entries, not 298 710 separate criminal cases. That distinction matters. It does not, however, make the position acceptable.

The figures include 62 975 case entries linked to rape, murder, and sexual offences against children. Each outstanding entry may contain evidence capable of identifying an offender, excluding an innocent person or connecting crimes committed in different places.

This is happening in a country where SAPS recorded 11 430 counts of rape between October and December 2025. That is more than five recorded rape counts every hour. The real number is almost certainly higher because many rapes are never reported.

National Disaster

President Cyril Ramaphosa has declared gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) a national disaster. The declaration was supposed to accelerate resources and improve the handling of GBVF cases.

So where is that urgency in the forensic system?

A declaration means little to a survivor if the DNA evidence from her case remains in a queue for two years. Government cannot call GBVF a national disaster in speeches while the part of the criminal justice system responsible for processing crucial evidence is allowed to fall further behind.

I raised the alarm in March 2025, when the reported DNA backlog had exceeded 140 000. At the time, the response focused heavily on the need for more laboratories. More capacity is certainly needed, but buildings alone will not solve this.

Forensic services have struggled with equipment failures, expired maintenance contracts, shortages, staffing pressures, and poor planning. A new laboratory will eventually develop the same problems if the management failures behind the backlog are left untouched.

There is an even more uncomfortable question.

Disrupted

Information received from within the forensic system suggests that only one crime-scene sample may sometimes be tested where three or four potentially relevant samples were submitted. We have also received reports that laboratory work was disrupted because the mandatory medical surveillance of employees had not been kept up to date.

These reports still require independent verification. SAPS must answer them properly.

There are valid scientific reasons not to test every item collected at every crime scene. Laboratories across the world prioritise samples according to their likely value to an investigation. But that decision should be based on science and the circumstances of the case, not simply on a lack of capacity.

If four samples are submitted in a rape or murder investigation and only one is tested, what happens if the offender’s DNA is on one of the other three?

That is the difference between proper forensic prioritisation and rationing justice.

The consequences extend beyond a single case. DNA can connect an offender to crimes committed years apart or in different provinces. A delayed test does not only affect the victim whose case is waiting. It may also allow a repeat offender to continue attacking others because the system has failed to make the link.

The same problem can be seen in ballistic testing. Seizing a firearm is only the beginning. It must be properly recorded, sent for examination, and compared against evidence from other crime scenes. Otherwise, a firearm that could connect one person to several shootings remains just another item in a police store.

Detectives understand this frustration. They are expected to complete dockets and build prosecutable cases while waiting months or years for scientific results. Improving forensic capacity would not compete with frontline policing. It would make the work already being done by detectives far more effective.

Beyond Assumption

Government now needs to look beyond the assumption that SAPS must perform every part of this work itself.

South African universities have advanced laboratories and expertise in forensic genetics, molecular biology, and related fields. That capacity could play a critical role in clearing defined parts of the backlog, validating methods, conducting research, and training more forensic scientists.

This does not mean sending crime-scene evidence to ordinary teaching laboratories. Participating university facilities would have to meet strict requirements for accreditation, security, confidentiality, quality assurance, and chain of custody. Their work must be legally defensible, and the integrity of the National Forensic DNA Database must remain protected.

Those are standards to be met, not reasons to refuse the conversation.

Government should urgently identify which university laboratories could qualify, what additional accreditation or infrastructure they would need, and which categories of testing could safely be assigned to them. If legislative or regulatory changes are required, Parliament should consider them. If the obstacle is institutional resistance, senior leadership must explain why protecting existing control is more important than testing outstanding evidence.

Audit

We also need an independent audit of the backlog. Parliament should receive a breakdown by laboratory, offence category, age, and type of entry. SAPS must disclose how many submitted samples are actually tested, how many are excluded, which instruments are not working, and how much laboratory time is lost to staffing, maintenance, or procurement failures.

The National Forensic Oversight and Ethics Board must be able to test these claims and report publicly. We cannot measure progress by changing definitions or simply counting how many entries a laboratory closes. The real measure is whether forensic evidence helps identify offenders, solve cases, and secure sound prosecutions.

GBVF is a national disaster. The issue is whether the state is responding as if it believes its own declaration.

At least five rape counts are recorded every hour. Evidence from serious crimes is waiting years to be processed. Potential capacity at universities remains largely unused.

That cannot be allowed to become normal. SAPS must open the system to properly accredited assistance, publish a credible recovery plan with deadlines, and account for every avoidable delay. If it will not do so voluntarily, Parliament, and if necessary the courts, must compel it to act.

Justice cannot depend on whether a laboratory happens to have enough capacity to test the right sample.

Ian Cameron is a Member of Parliament for the Democratic Alliance and the Chairman of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police.