By Dr Shaheda Omar*

From a child-protection perspective, I would support greater, carefully regulated access to the National Register for Sex Offenders (NRSO). But I would distinguish very clearly between public protection and public punishment. The purpose of a sex-offender register must be to prevent further harm, not to create a digital form of vigilantism.

The issue is particularly important because the NRSO was established precisely to protect vulnerable people. The law has also expanded the definition of vulnerable persons beyond children and persons with mental disabilities. Government has indicated that it is now working towards broader public access, although legislative and privacy issues still have to be resolved.

1. Should parents and caregivers have access to the NRSO?

Yes — but access must be structured, verified and purposeful.
As a child-protection practitioner, I believe parents and caregivers have a legitimate right to know whether a person who is being placed in a position of trust around their children has a relevant sexual-offence conviction.

We cannot tell parents to protect their children while simultaneously withholding information that may allow them to make informed safeguarding decisions.

The current system already allows employers such as schools, crèches and hospitals to conduct checks, but the register is not currently open to the general public. Government has acknowledged the need to expand access and has been considering legislative reform to make this possible.

But I would caution against presenting the NRSO as a complete child-protection solution.

A person who does not appear on the register is not necessarily safe. The register records convictions; it cannot capture every person who poses a risk, particularly where abuse has never been disclosed, reported, investigated or successfully prosecuted.
That is why the message to parents must never become: “Check the register and your child is safe.”

The message must be: vet, supervise, educate, listen to children and maintain safeguarding systems.

2. What about Ian Cameron’s 30-day campaign?

I understand the motivation behind a campaign that seeks to expose the reality of sexual offending and place pressure on government to strengthen public access to the NRSO.

Public awareness matters. Silence protects perpetrators, not children.

However, I would draw an important line between raising awareness about convicted offenders and creating a public naming-and-shaming campaign.

There is a legitimate difference between saying:

This person has been convicted of a sexual offence and the state has a verified record of that conviction.

and creating an environment where members of the public feel entitled to identify, confront, threaten, harass or punish that individual.

Once photographs, names and personal information are circulated online, the information can be copied indefinitely, detached from its original context and distributed far beyond the original purpose.

There is also an absolutely critical distinction between an accused person and a convicted person. We must never allow allegations, charges or social-media claims to be presented as convictions. Due process remains essential.

So, if such campaigns are undertaken, I would insist on independent verification against authoritative court records, clear identification of the offence and sentence, no embellishment or speculation, and no publication of information that could identify or further traumatise victims.

And we must remember something very important from a child-protection perspective: the victim must never become collateral damage in our determination to expose the offender.

A photograph of an offender may be public, but the identity of a child victim, family circumstances, school, address or other identifying information must remain protected.

3. What safeguards are needed if the NRSO becomes publicly accessible?

This is where I believe government has to be extremely deliberate.

First, the database must be authoritative and continuously updated.

There must be one official source of truth. Information should show that an individual has been convicted, the relevant offence and the status of the registration — rather than leaving members of the public to interpret court documents or social-media posts themselves.

Second, there must be a correction mechanism.

People must have a clearly defined process to challenge an incorrect entry, particularly where names are similar or information has been entered incorrectly. The Department itself recognises procedures for correcting erroneous entries and for applications concerning removal from the register.

Third, victims must be completely protected.

No public-access system should expose information that could identify a child victim or reveal sensitive information about the circumstances of the abuse.

Fourth, there must be strict limits on what information is published.

The objective should be safeguarding — not publishing an offender’s home address, details of family members or information that could facilitate retaliation.

Fifth, there must be consequences for misuse.

If information is used to threaten, assault, harass or intimidate someone, that cannot be tolerated. A child-protection system cannot become a vehicle for mob justice.

Sixth, the system must be designed around safeguarding rather than curiosity.

I would favour a system that allows parents and caregivers to make legitimate safeguarding enquiries, particularly where someone has access to children or other vulnerable people, rather than simply creating an unrestricted searchable database containing people’s personal information.

And finally, the NRSO must not operate in isolation.

We need effective vetting in schools, sports clubs, religious organisations, childcare settings, residential facilities and NGOs; functioning child-protection systems; trained professionals; proper investigations; DNA and forensic capacity; and swift consequences when abuse is reported.

Government itself has acknowledged that implementation remains the challenge. Recent Justice Department reporting indicates that the NRSO is being used for institutional vetting, including in the NPA, while government is pursuing broader access.

The fundamental principle

My position would therefore be:

I support transparency. I support informed parents. I support stronger access to verified information about convicted sexual offenders. But I do not support vigilantism, public humiliation or a system that sacrifices privacy, due process or victims’ rights in the name of child protection.

We have to be careful not to confuse visibility with prevention.
The real measure of success should not be how many offenders we can put on a website or how many photographs we can circulate. The measure should be whether fewer children are harmed because adults were given reliable information, institutions properly vetted people, warning signs were recognised, disclosures were believed and acted upon, and known offenders were prevented from gaining access to vulnerable people.

Ultimately, child protection is not about revenge against perpetrators. It is about creating an environment in which children are safer. That must remain the compass for any reform of the NRSO.

*An edited extract of this was article published by Cape Argus on 6 October 2026