Rusternburg fake lawyer who won more than 16 cases without license was arrested and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

A dramatic and highly controversial High Court ruling has sent shockwaves across South Africa after a Rustenburg man, who once famously described himself as a “lawyer from heaven,” successfully won his appeal — despite previously being sentenced to 20 years in prison for fraud and impersonation.

Kagiso Josias Selomane (45) became a national talking point several years ago when it emerged that he had been posing as a qualified legal practitioner while allegedly defrauding unsuspecting clients of more than R1 million over a four-year period between 2011 and 2015. His case, which blended elements of criminal deception, religious delusion, and legal loopholes, continues to divide public opinion even after the latest court outcome.

Selomane, who has also referred to himself as “the second messiah,” maintained throughout his trial and appeal that his actions were not criminal but rather part of what he described as a divine calling. According to him, he was sent to “save innocent people who were stuck in prison” and to assist vulnerable individuals who could not afford proper legal representation. He argued that the people he represented were not victims, but beneficiaries of his work.

During the period in question, Selomane managed to convincingly operate within legal spaces typically reserved for trained and admitted professionals. While posing as a lawyer, he handled a variety of legal matters, including divorce proceedings, labour disputes, and even administrative responsibilities linked to financial institutions. In one particularly alarming revelation during the original trial, it emerged that he had acted as an executor on behalf of a bank — a role that ordinarily requires strict legal credentials and regulatory oversight.

What made the case even more perplexing was evidence that Selomane had, in some instances, successfully argued cases on behalf of clients. Several matters he handled reportedly resulted in favourable outcomes, which he later cited as proof that his work was effective and beneficial. Supporters of his appeal argued that this blurred the line between outright fraud and unlawful but seemingly competent representation.

However, investigators eventually uncovered inconsistencies in his credentials. A deeper probe revealed that Selomane was not a registered legal practitioner and had no formal authority to represent clients in court. His arrest followed soon after, leading to a high-profile trial that captured public attention across the country.

In the initial judgment, the court took a hard stance, describing Selomane’s actions as deliberate, calculated, and sustained over several years. The sentencing court found that he had knowingly deceived clients, abused their trust, and undermined the integrity of South Africa’s legal system. The judge further noted that Selomane showed little to no remorse for his actions, instead doubling down on his claims of divine appointment. As a result, he was handed a lengthy 20-year prison sentence, intended to send a strong message about the seriousness of impersonating legal professionals.

The recent High Court appeal ruling, however, has dramatically shifted the narrative. While the full reasoning behind the decision is still being scrutinised, the court overturned the sentence, reopening debates around proportional punishment, intent, and the effectiveness of the justice system in dealing with unconventional offenders.

Following the ruling, Selomane reportedly stood by his long-held beliefs, declaring: “I am not a fraudster — I am a messenger.” His words have reignited intense discussions both online and offline, with many South Africans expressing disbelief, anger, and confusion over how such a sentence could be overturned.

Legal experts are divided. Some argue that the appeal decision may reflect procedural flaws or sentencing irregularities rather than an endorsement of Selomane’s conduct. Others warn that the ruling could set a dangerous precedent, potentially emboldening individuals to impersonate professionals under the guise of good intentions or spiritual calling.

Members of the public, particularly those who have struggled to access justice, have voiced mixed reactions. While some sympathise with the idea of helping the marginalised, many insist that no one — regardless of perceived success or belief — should be allowed to operate outside the law. Critics argue that the integrity of the legal profession is paramount and that allowing unqualified individuals to practice law places vulnerable people at serious risk.

As the dust settles, questions remain unanswered. Will Selomane face further legal consequences? Were there victims who were never fully heard? And what does this case mean for the broader fight against fraud and impersonation in South Africa?

For now, the overturned sentence has left the nation deeply divided, with one pressing question echoing across social media and legal circles alike: was justice truly served, or has the system failed those it was meant to protect?