THOMAS (JUNIOR) SITHOLE: WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR AND THE LEGAL PROCESSES THAT MAY FOLLOW

Gittins Attorneys extends sincere condolences to the Sithole family, and to Thomas’s friends,  classmates and educators. The loss of a young person is devastating. It is understandable  that loved ones want clear answers, accountability where wrongdoing is proven, and a  process that treats the family with dignity. 

This article does two things. First, it summarises the key facts that can be identified from  credible public reporting and police statements. Second, it explains the legal processes that  typically apply in South Africa after a death that appears to be “unnatural”. Because the  matter is under investigation, some details remain contested. Where accounts differ, we  indicate that clearly. 

What has been publicly confirmed 

Public reporting quotes a police spokesperson, Lt-Col Mavela Masondo, confirming that a  body recovered from the Vaal River on Monday, 12 January 2026 was identified by a family  member as Thomas Sithole, described as a 17-year-old Hoërskool Driehoek learner.  Reporting also records that Thomas was reported missing after a private boat outing/cruise  on Friday, 9 January 2026, and that the case was taken over by Sasolburg police (Free  State) for further investigation. Reports place the incident near Stonehaven on the Vaal  River, and some outlets refer to him as Thomas Junior Sithole while police-facing coverage  often shortens this to Thomas Sithole. 

Those broad elements are consistent across multiple reputable sources: there was a boat  outing on 9 January 2026, a missing person report followed, and a body recovered on 12  January 2026 was identified as Thomas by a family member, with the investigation being  handled by Sasolburg police. 

What remains disputed — and why it matters legally 

While the overall outline is consistent, several details that could later be legally significant  are still disputed in public reporting. One line of reporting records the family’s concern about  an alleged five-hour delay between the disappearance and when police were notified,  alongside allegations about alcohol being present in circumstances involving minors.  Another line of reporting relays a statement issued via the boat owner/skipper’s legal  representative disputing what it describes as false and inaccurate allegations circulating on  social media, and presenting a different sequence of events, including a claim that police  were contacted within about 25 minutes. 

At this stage, these competing versions are not findings of fact. They are precisely the kinds  of issues investigators typically test against objective evidence, including witness  statements, phone records and time-stamps, location data, video footage where available,  and the conclusions of forensic pathology. In many investigations, what matters most is not  what was posted online first, but what can be proved later through reliable, independently  verifiable evidence. 

The family’s public calls for answers and independent steps 

Public reporting indicates that the family and supporters have pursued fundraising and  independent avenues, including a BackaBuddy campaign linked to funeral costs and to  supporting additional steps aimed at establishing clarity, such as a private investigation and  medico-legal consultation.

Where families consider independent steps after a death, it is important that everything is  done lawfully and with appropriate medico-legal guidance. In South Africa, the handling of  post-mortem processes in cases of non-natural deaths sits within a regulated medico-legal  framework. Families can and do seek additional expert input, but it must be approached  carefully to protect the integrity of evidence and to ensure compliance with applicable legal  requirements. 

The legal processes that may follow in South Africa 

1) Criminal investigation and possible prosecution 

The primary legal process is the ongoing SAPS investigation. Decisions about whether any  person should be charged, and with what offence, ultimately rest with the prosecuting  authority. In cases where death is linked to alleged safety failures, prosecutors commonly  consider whether the evidence supports liability for culpable homicide (negligently causing  death) or, in rarer circumstances where intention can be proved, murder. In South African  criminal law, murder is generally described as the unlawful and intentional causing of death,  while culpable homicide is described as the unlawful and negligent causing of death. 

On what is currently in the public domain, it would be inappropriate to speculate about guilt  or specific charges. What can responsibly be said is that criminal liability, if pursued, usually  turns on questions such as who had a duty of care in the circumstances (including  supervision where minors are involved), what safety measures were reasonably required,  whether those measures were taken, and whether any act or omission materially contributed  to the death. 

2) An inquest (fact-finding in a death apparently from other than natural causes) 

South African law provides for inquests in cases where a death appears to be from other  than natural causes. The Inquests Act 58 of 1959 exists to provide for the holding of inquests  in such matters. Public reporting has indicated that an inquest docket has been opened in  this case. 

An inquest is not a criminal trial. It is a judicial fact-finding process intended to establish, as  far as possible, how the person died, when and where the death occurred, and whether the  evidence suggests that an act or omission may involve an offence. In practice, an inquest  can be important because it helps clarify contested facts and can inform later prosecutorial  decisions, without substituting for a full criminal trial where charges are brought. 

3) Civil claims (delict) for damages 

Criminal proceedings and an inquest process are separate from civil remedies. Families may  explore civil claims where wrongful and negligent conduct can be proven on a balance of  probabilities. Depending on the facts, civil claims may include funeral and related expenses  that are reasonable and properly supported, and in appropriate cases may also involve  claims linked to financial dependency (often referred to as loss of support). Because Thomas  was 17, any dependency analysis would be highly fact-specific and would require careful  consideration of the family’s circumstances, the nature of any legal duty of support, and  causation. 

Civil liability is not determined by public opinion. It is determined by evidence and the legal  standards that apply to negligence, wrongfulness, causation and quantifiable loss. For that  reason, civil steps are usually taken once the available evidence has been gathered and  preserved, and once the legal and factual issues are clearer.

A respectful note while the investigation continues 

The Sithole family’s grief, and their need for clarity, deserves compassion and seriousness.  At the same time, fairness requires that accountability follows evidence, not social media  speculation or pressure. The most constructive path is a thorough investigation, careful  preservation of all available evidence, and a process that keeps the family appropriately  informed within the limits of the law.