Kaine Agary
A few weeks ago, one of the
contestants of Big Brother Naija was
disqualified from the contest for his
conduct with another contestant. The
disqualified contestant , Kemen, had
groped another contestant, T- Boss,
while she slept. I am not closely
following this edition of Big Brother so
I have very little background on the
relationship between the two
contestants before the offence . That
however does not diminish the
importance of the issues raised by
Kemen’ s actions and the response of
the other contestants and some
viewers to the situation.
Unfortunately , the myths and
stereotypes around sexual offences are
still entrenched in our society. Many
still believe that sexual offences take
place in dark alleys and dangerous
places; offenders are strangers; and if
the woman did not holler, scream and
fight off their attacker then she
enjoyed the sexual act and there was
no offence. When those who hold on to
these myths accept that a sexual
offence took place , the next step is to
blame the victim – what was she
wearing ? What was she doing at that
location at that time of day? Why did
she not respond in one way or the
other to resist and fend off the
offender ? And so on and so forth .
After the primary sexual assault, the
victim suffers several more assaults
from society and the justice system –
from family and friends who question
their stories, to the police who
investigate and even the judges who
adjudicate .
Studies have shown the reality to be
that most sexual offences are
committed by persons known to the
complainant . Not every victim of a
sexual assault will respond in hysteria,
the range of emotional responses
varies from one victim to another – for
some it is shock , others denial , rage,
and yet others remain calm through
the ordeal and its aftermath . Reporting
the assault is another matter and there
are many reasons why victims of
sexual offences do not report to the
authorities including the fear of the
secondary assaults in the form of
blaming the victim for the offence ;
fear of not being believed; family
pressure; shame ; or simply , not
recognising that what they have been
through is a sexual assault.
Over time , the traditional views on
sexual offences have changed and that
has also seen changes in not only the
definitions of sexual offences , but also
in the rules of evidence applicable in
sexual offence trials. For instance, the
traditional position required judges to
give corroboration warnings in sexual
offences where the alleged victim was
the only witness to the offence . A
corroboration warning is a warning
given to the jury (in a jury system ) or
that the judges take into account
themselves , about the danger of
convicting an accused person based on
the uncorroborated testimony of
suspect witnesses. Suspect witnesses,
which traditionally included children
and complainants of sexual assault,
were so - called because it was believed
that their testimonies often turned out
to be untrue . In many jurisdictions
today , a corroboration warning is no
longer mandatory in sexual offence
trials. Rules have also been developed
to keep the victim ’ s sexual history out
of evidence in sexual assault trial .
Rules exist to keep up with the changes
in society even though the change in
laws often lags behind . The traditional
position regarding corroboration
evidence in sexual offence trials had
to do with the culture of society at the
time, including the belief that
unmarried women caught in the act of
sex had a motive to lie and accuse
their partners of rape to save their
reputation and liberty .Whereas in the
old days there was no way of telling
whether a sexual offence complainant
was telling the truth or not , in today ’s
world, science and technological
advances allow us to gather other
physical evidence to support a victim ’s
story .
We have laws to protect people from
sexual offences. Whether the laws
need reform to keep up with the times
is another matter. What is important
is the question around what makes
laws valid . Is the law valid because it
is enacted as law or does its validity
depend on the enforcement of the law ?
These are questions that many legal
philosophers have tried to answer. No
matter how great the provisions of the
law are on paper, they have no effect
if the chances of their enforcement are
slim. If a bad person is not afraid of
the consequences of their actions what
is the point of the law ? And who
enforces the law ? Ultimately it is the
judges . Sadly, judges come to the
bench influenced by their own
prejudices, sometimes subtle,
sometimes overtly expressed in their
decisions .
Last week, a 64 year- old Federal Court
Judge in Canada , Justice Robin Camp,
was forced to resign after the
Canadian Judicial Council
recommended that he be removed
from the bench . This recommendation
followed a 15 - month review of Camp’s
conduct in the trial of a 19 year old
sexual assault complainant . During the
trial , the Judge made comments like,
“ sex and pain sometimes go together ”
and asked the complainant why she
“ couldn ’t … just keep [her ] knees
together ” . This is a case where the
judges biases were clear to see . But
how about the others who do not so
express their bias even when their
prejudices influence the outcome of
the trial ?
Laws alone are not going to protect
people from sexual offences, and laws
alone are not going to ensure justice
for victims . Enforcement of the laws is
key, along with a change in our
society’s attitude towards sexual
offences. As we educate the public to
recognise sexual assault, there must
also be training for everyone involved
in securing justice for victims , from
the police to judges .
Big