Why Is Femicide So High in South Africa? The Factors Behind a Persistent Crisis

South Africa has one of the highest recorded rates of intimate-partner femicide in the world. The latest national femicide research, covering April 2020 to March 2021, found that 60.1% of women murdered were killed by an intimate partner, with an intimate-partner femicide rate of 5.5 per 100,000 women. That figure is almost five times the estimated global rate used in the study—not six times, as is sometimes reported.

There is no single explanation for South Africa’s femicide crisis. Research points instead to an interaction between intimate-partner violence, controlling behaviour, harmful gender norms, previous exposure to violence, alcohol and substance misuse, economic insecurity, widespread violence in communities and access to weapons. Historical inequality and weaknesses in prevention and criminal-justice responses can make those risks harder to interrupt. The evidence therefore points to a systemic problem rather than one behaviour or one demographic factor.

What the numbers actually tell us

The South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) has tracked femicide through four national studies covering 1999, 2009, 2017 and 2020/21. The research is particularly valuable because South Africa does not have a sufficiently reliable routine administrative system for identifying every gender-related killing as femicide. The studies therefore use mortuary records combined with police investigation information to establish the circumstances and relationship between victims and perpetrators.

The long-term picture is more complicated than a simple story of continually increasing murders.

The figures should not be interpreted as a live 2026 count. The latest dedicated national study covers 2020/21, and comparisons between countries can be affected by differences in definitions, age groups, data quality and methodology.

The research does, however, establish something important: South Africa has experienced a persistently high level of lethal violence against women even though some forms of femicide declined over earlier decades.

Intimate-partner violence is central to the problem

One of the most important findings is where many of the killings occur: within intimate relationships.

The fourth national femicide study found that intimate partners accounted for 60.1% of female murders in 2020/21. The figure was particularly concerning because intimate-partner femicide had increased during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, even while overall femicide fell during periods when alcohol sales were restricted.

This changes how the problem should be understood.

Femicide is sometimes discussed primarily as a public-space crime, stranger attack or consequence of general criminality. Those risks exist, but the national evidence shows that a large proportion of women’s killings occur within relationships.

The danger can also develop before a murder takes place. Researchers cited by UN Women identify patterns such as severe physical abuse, strangulation, injuries requiring hospitalisation and combinations of emotional, physical and sexual abuse as warning signs associated with heightened risk.

That makes prevention difficult if intervention begins only after an assault has become life-threatening.

Control and unequal power can turn conflict into violence

Gender inequality is not simply a question of representation or income. In intimate relationships, researchers examine whether one partner exercises disproportionate control over the other.

The World Health Organization identifies male controlling behaviour, unequal power, attitudes that justify violence and harmful gender norms among factors associated with intimate-partner violence.

South Africa’s own National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide similarly identifies unequal gender power relations and patriarchal social norms as important parts of the environment in which violence occurs.

Control can take different forms: monitoring a partner, restricting movement, controlling money, isolating someone from family and friends, threatening violence or treating a woman’s decisions as subject to a man’s authority.

Not every controlling relationship becomes violent, and these factors cannot be used to predict an individual killing. But they help explain why femicide often has a history rather than appearing without warning.

Previous abuse matters because violence can escalate

A key distinction in understanding femicide is between a sudden homicide and the escalation of an existing pattern of abuse.

South African research indicates that many intimate-partner killings occur in contexts involving previous domestic abuse, threats or intimidation. UN Women, drawing on SAMRC research, specifically identifies severe violence and multiple forms of abuse as warning signs.

This is important for prevention because it means the relevant intervention may occur months or years before a homicide.

A woman does not necessarily become vulnerable to femicide at the moment she is killed. Her risk can be shaped by an established pattern of coercion, threats, assaults and increasing control.

The challenge is ensuring that those earlier warning signs are recognised and that reporting violence produces meaningful protection rather than leaving survivors exposed to retaliation.

Childhood exposure can reproduce violence across generations

Violence can also be learned.

The WHO identifies childhood abuse and witnessing violence in the family as risk factors associated with later intimate-partner violence.

South Africa’s 2022 National Gender-Based Violence Study similarly found associations between childhood trauma, victimisation and perpetration. The study’s authors argue for a life-course approach because experiences earlier in life can influence later patterns of violence.

This does not mean that someone who experiences violence as a child will become violent as an adult. Most people exposed to trauma do not become perpetrators.

The significance is population-level: repeated exposure to violence can normalise aggression, affect relationships and contribute to environments in which violence is more readily tolerated.

It also helps explain why prevention cannot begin only with adults already involved in violent relationships.

Harmful gender norms create permission structures for violence

Attitudes toward gender and relationships matter because they influence what people consider acceptable.

South Africa’s national GBV study examined gender and sexual norms alongside violence perpetration. It found evidence of attitudes that reinforce male authority and acceptance of violence in some circumstances. One particularly stark finding was that 22.5% of men who were currently or previously in an intimate relationship agreed that a woman could not refuse sex with her husband.

That statistic does not mean that 22.5% of South African men are potential femicide perpetrators. It measures a specific attitude among a defined survey population.

Its importance lies elsewhere: beliefs about entitlement, consent and authority can create an environment in which women’s autonomy is undermined.

The WHO similarly identifies harmful gender norms—including beliefs that uphold male privilege and entitlement—as societal factors associated with violence against women.

Alcohol is a risk factor, not a complete explanation

Alcohol frequently appears in discussions of South African violence, but it is important not to turn alcohol into a substitute explanation for gender-based violence.

Research consistently associates harmful alcohol use with intimate-partner violence. The WHO identifies alcohol misuse as a risk factor, while South Africa’s national strategic plan also identifies high levels of alcohol and substance abuse within the wider social context of GBV.

Alcohol can reduce inhibitions and impair judgement, potentially increasing the likelihood or severity of violent behaviour. But drinking does not cause every person to become violent, and alcohol cannot explain why violence is disproportionately directed at women in particular relationship contexts.

The South African femicide research offers an instructive example. During COVID-19 alcohol restrictions, overall femicide decreased, but intimate-partner femicide increased. That finding suggests that alcohol availability is one factor among several rather than a complete explanation for the crisis.

Guns can make violence more lethal

Access to weapons changes the consequences of domestic violence.

Research published by South African Medical Journal researchers has identified firearms as a significant factor in violence against women, particularly the killing of intimate partners.

The more recent four-survey analysis found that firearm-related femicides increased during 2020/21 alongside increased firearm availability.

This distinction matters: a weapon does not explain why violence begins, but it can affect whether an assault becomes fatal.

That makes firearm regulation, safe storage, removal of weapons from high-risk situations and effective enforcement relevant components of a broader prevention strategy.

Poverty and unemployment add pressure, but they do not excuse violence

Economic conditions form another layer of the problem.

South Africa’s national strategic plan links GBV to poverty, unemployment and inequality, while the WHO identifies poverty and unemployment among community and societal factors associated with higher levels of violence against women.

Economic dependence can also make it harder for someone experiencing abuse to leave a relationship.

But poverty should not be presented as a direct cause of femicide. Most people living in poverty do not commit violence against their partners. The more useful interpretation is that economic insecurity can interact with unequal power, dependence, relationship conflict and limited access to services.

Economic empowerment can therefore improve women’s options without being treated as a standalone solution to violence.

South Africa’s wider culture of violence matters

Femicide exists within a broader environment of serious violent crime.

South Africa’s National Strategic Plan describes the country’s history of violence as connected to apartheid-era inequality, poverty, marginalisation and militarisation, alongside gender inequality and patriarchal social norms. It also notes the reinforcement of gender-based violence by other forms of community violence, including gang and taxi violence.

This historical explanation should not be confused with a claim that apartheid directly causes an individual contemporary murder.

Its relevance is structural. A society with longstanding exposure to violence may have more opportunities for violent behaviour to become normalised, while institutions and communities face a larger overall burden of crime.

Femicide therefore has to be understood as both a gendered form of violence and part of a broader violence problem.

The justice gap can allow risk to persist

Prevention does not end with changing attitudes. Institutions matter.

The fourth national femicide study found that fewer than one in five intimate-partner femicide cases resulted in a conviction in the 2020/21 data, while the proportion of cases in which perpetrators were unidentified also increased.

These figures should not be interpreted as meaning that the criminal justice system is responsible for causing femicide. Nor does a low conviction rate tell us by itself why an individual case failed.

But weak or inconsistent institutional responses can have serious consequences. If threats, assaults and protection concerns do not lead to effective intervention, opportunities to prevent escalation may be lost.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has previously called on South Africa to strengthen gender-sensitive policing and judicial responses, survivor support and implementation and monitoring of the National Strategic Plan.

Why education alone has not solved the problem

Education is frequently proposed as a long-term answer to GBV, and it has an important role. But education does not automatically eliminate harmful beliefs or violent behaviour.

South Africa’s national GBV study found that violence is associated with a combination of social, behavioural and structural factors, including gender norms, childhood trauma, alcohol and substance use and relationship dynamics.

This is why prevention programmes increasingly focus not only on teaching women about their rights, but also on changing attitudes among men and boys, building healthy relationship skills, addressing childhood exposure to violence and improving institutional responses.

Education can influence norms. It cannot substitute for functioning police, courts, shelters, health services and economic support.

Why the crisis persists despite laws and policies

South Africa has developed a substantial legal and policy framework addressing gender-based violence. The National Strategic Plan on GBVF was designed as a 10-year, multisectoral framework covering prevention, justice, protection, survivor support and accountability.

The persistence of femicide therefore raises a more difficult question than whether the country has laws.

It is whether those laws and programmes consistently reach the people and situations in which violence occurs.

Government itself has acknowledged that legislation is only one part of the response and that prevention must also address social conditions, survivor support and economic empowerment.

The gap between policy and implementation is consequently one of the most important parts of the story.

What the evidence does—and does not—support

It is tempting to search for one defining explanation: patriarchy, alcohol, poverty, guns, unemployment, inadequate policing or a supposed national “culture of violence.”

The evidence does not support reducing South Africa’s femicide crisis to any one of these.

Instead, the strongest picture is cumulative. Gender inequality and controlling relationship dynamics can create vulnerability; previous abuse can provide a pathway to escalation; childhood exposure can influence later behaviour; alcohol and weapons can increase the likelihood or lethality of violence; economic insecurity can restrict options; and institutional failures can allow dangerous situations to continue.

These factors also interact differently across individuals and communities. A risk factor is not a prediction, and population-level research cannot determine why a particular person committed a particular killing without case-specific evidence.

What could change the trajectory?

There is evidence that change is possible.

The first three decades of South African femicide research documented a substantial decline in intimate-partner femicide between 1999 and 2009. The 2017 research also found continued evidence of decline in intimate-partner femicide compared with 1999, even though the country remained at an exceptionally high level internationally.

That history matters because it demonstrates that the rate is not fixed.

The more difficult question is how to sustain and extend reductions while preventing the reversals seen during periods of heightened social disruption.

The evidence points toward several connected priorities: identifying severe and escalating abuse earlier; ensuring effective protection for survivors; addressing harmful gender norms; reducing access to weapons in high-risk circumstances; tackling harmful alcohol use; supporting children exposed to violence; improving investigation and prosecution; and strengthening the social and economic resources available to women.

The most important distinction is prevention before the killing

South Africa’s femicide statistics can make the crisis appear as a collection of individual murders. The research shows why that is incomplete.

Many intimate-partner killings emerge from relationships in which warning signs may already exist. That means the critical intervention point is often before the homicide: when threats, coercive control, serious assaults, strangulation, sexual violence or other escalating forms of abuse first become visible to survivors, families, communities or institutions.

The country’s experience also shows why no single intervention is likely to be sufficient. Femicide is produced through overlapping individual, relationship, community and societal risks. Reducing it therefore depends on whether those layers of risk can be identified and interrupted before violence becomes fatal.

**The most useful way to understand South Africa’s unusually high femicide rate is not to ask which single factor is responsible, but why so many risk factors can operate together without being interrupted. The national evidence shows that intimate-partner violence, unequal power, harmful gender norms, previous abuse, childhood exposure to violence, alcohol and weapon availability all matter, while poverty, inequality and institutional weaknesses can shape the conditions in which those risks persist. The long-term challenge is turning that knowledge into earlier intervention that prevents a history of violence from ending in a woman’s death.**