Gross violations

FOR GOOD reasons are victims shielded from public view under the Sexual Offences Act.

Sexual violation is harrowing. Victims are re-traumatised by court proceedings. And they are often disbelieved and stigmatised. Under the law, not only must identities not be published, but hearings take place in camera. Certain witnesses can also testify behind a screen.

Parliament, in its wisdom, has passed all these measures, mindful of the obstacles victims face in coming forward. Still, so few do. They know they have little chance of justice. Only 123 of 685 reports of rape and sexual violation in 2024 were solved.

Which is why we join with those, including the Law Association, who have this week expressed disappointment over the circumstances surrounding a high-profile case in which not only was the identity of a complainant leaked, but the disseminated information, including graphic details of the alleged offences, was widely circulated on digital messaging services, including among lawyers.

“The association calls on the TTPS and other relevant authorities to investigate the source of this leak and to hold accountable any individual responsible,” the body said on July 11, one day after attorney Saira Lakhan issued a similar call, lamenting what she termed a “gross violation” and “an affront to the integrity of the justice system.” That system is one in which due process must be allowed to play out.

Which is why it is also deeply unsettling to see the kind of remarks made by the senior member of the legal profession at the centre of this storm at a July 10 media conference, one day after being released on $150,000 bail on charges of sexual misconduct.

Instead of waiting for his day in court and allowing justice to take its course, this prominent attorney elected to traffic in culture war grievances and to make remarks that undoubtedly did much to worsen the problem of victim shaming. Standing up for an apparently prosecuted patriarchy, he issued a general broadside against females making “hopelessly unmeritorious” allegations and stirred into the pot race for good measure. Instead of letting the court decide, he sought to litigate his matter before cameras.

If there are good reasons why protections exist for victims, there are also good reasons why all are entitled to the presumption of innocence and to freedom of expression. This lawyer is entitled to both.

But in a country in which one in five women experience sexual abuse, which victim, seeing what took place this week, would come forward?

To protect some complainants and not all is to corrode the authority of the justice system, whatever its flaws. Lawyers, of all people, should understand this and should face sanction if they bring their profession into disrepute.