Instead, their prison sentences were fully suspended.
Image used for illustrative purposes. Picture: iStock
A four-year-old boy was forced to smoke a Mandrax-laced pipe on camera – and none of the adults involved will go directly to jail.
Shocking video sparks national outrage
The case began on 29 July 2025 in Johannesburg, when a short video spread rapidly online showing a toddler lighting and inhaling from what appeared to be a Mandrax-laced pipe while adults encouraged him.
After the video caused widespread public outrage, social services stepped in, taking the child for medical care and placing them in a secure shelter.
Police arrested the boy’s mother and three other adults after the clip circulated, and prosecutors initially laid serious charges that included child abuse and attempted murder.
What the court decided
On 25 June 2026, three of the accused entered guilty pleas under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and proposed wholly suspended sentences.
All four received their sentences in the Johannesburg Magistrates’ Court.
The court gave the mother a two-year and a five-year sentence, but suspended both – sparing her from going to jail. She won’t serve any time behind bars provided she goes five years without committing a drug- or child abuse-related offence.
The court also placed her on 12 months of house arrest and probation. Under the terms, she must perform monthly community service, stay off drugs, keep a job, and meet regularly with a social worker.
The court gave each of the three co-accused a five-year sentence-also fully suspended-and banned all four offenders from possessing firearms.
“A troubling message”
Action Society slammed the sentence on Tuesday, criticising the court for not handing down real jail time.
Spokesperson Juanita du Preez said suspended sentences may carry conditions, but the outcome did not reflect the horror of exposing a defenceless child to drugs and treating his suffering as entertainment.
“When conduct this serious results in no direct imprisonment, it sends a deeply troubling message about the value placed on the safety and dignity of children,” Du Preez said.
The group noted the house arrest and required drug treatment, but argued that the court went too easy on the child’s mother.
They maintained that deliberately exposing a young child to dangerous drugs must come with real consequences to deter other parents from doing the same
