THE Molested AND THE RAPISTS
“When people see a problem, they often reach for
the easiest solution: pass a law. That doesn’t
always work out, because force rarely changes
things for the better, and that’s what those “laws”
really are, just exercises of force.”
Over the years on this campus, many molest cases
have been reported and dealt with in ways both
commendably prudent and abysmally
unforeseeable. The recent one is no exception.
And we all duly know the attitude of the entire
student populace towards this perversion
irrespective of the guilty party.
It is true that it is a tradition to deal with criminals
– however, not suspects – but convicts, found
guilty by a court of law, or a trial jury. In fact, the
resolution of the maddening mob at dusk on
Monday, 27th October, as an aftermath of a
previous day being Sunday, 26th, was a clear
misplacement of the scientific maximum shishsi
(SMS); it was practically a deviation towards
inhumanity and self-driven torture.
We would not peel the bark of the seed now. We
would rather postulate the incidence from the
views of all the parties one at a time. And first, we
begin with the accused.
THE STORY FROM THE POINT OF THE ACCUSED
According to the accused, in a recorded audio of
an interrogative session moderated in Fajuyi Hall
Secretariat, he said he deserved anything that
would be done to him having realized his
egregious act.
“What actually happened was that the girl came to
my house yesterday… you know it’s a normal
thing… a normal boy should get to say babe… and
she says no! I was now like... why not (if she were
here she could testify to it that we were like
playing). At a point, she got up and said I want to
go and I replied baby you are not going anywhere,
we will do this ‘thing’… then she hit me on the
head with a bottle of malt then I Molested her. ”
The man, who expressed himself under duress,
revealed that he is not based in Ife but only comes
to Ife to ‘play’ while he resides with an uncle in
Kaduna. He also claimed to have known the
student since her Pre-degree days (tapping his
fingers to even express certainty in time frame).
When asked if he actually beat the lady, the
accused replied, questioning the possibility of
Molesting and yet beating that same individual. He
also confirmed that he didn’t use protection but
never released in her.
Meanwhile he said he had threatened the lady
before she reacted using a bottle against him; he
had slapped her and actually hit her.
OUR IMPARTIAL OPINION
On the one hand, some sincere confessions have
been made by the suspect. He confessed, but he
was yet subject to so much savageness. He could
better still have been handed over to the Police. It
is a state crime that should take critical measures.
It is only hardened suspects of high tendencies of
being the actual criminal that are brutalized and
clobbered to such lengths.
Once confession, then the law holds. On the other
hand, while the audio was clearly decomposed;
one prominent investigative tool was the
controvertible proposition by a so called activist
who put it to the suspect in a challenging manner
as one who Molests, and such act being confirmed
by his parents, and he could not deny.
By this time, it was no more an interrogation of a
suspect but the castigating of a caught-in-the-act
criminal treated with palliating measures. He was
concurrently slapped and whipped while being
questioned – forcing words from him. Apparently,
one of the interrogators pleaded fairness and
patience before any upshot. The voice, inferring
from a similar case last year, exclaimed that the
case be dealt with amicably. In fact, it was said
that the man seemed silly and time should be
taken to study his stupidity.
But following the spontaneous response of
students and the palpable rendition of their
vindication of the victim’s (the girl’s) cry, there
unfolds an impeccable picturesque orchestration
of two rapists. While the suspect is taken as one by
the generality of students, the crowd that echoed
their voices which instigated a more fierce
condition for the former are a second identified
Molester.
We do not seek to plead his case. For no human
with a boundless interwoven stream of blood-
strings running through their veins should.
However, logic must be consulted and employed
when we battle issues such as this. To this end,
has anyone thought it up why the school authority
denied involvement in this incidence or why the
Students' Union would traverse relations in the
matter and disavow participation with the case?
Well, we see that side attraction as a story for
another time.
Insofar as we here pitch a stand of plain
propositions and thought-while considerations, let
it be known that we can never justify the beast’s
actions, say a consequence of insanity,
intoxication or psychological imbalance because
this would further dent his already-tarnished
image. We can never support this indecorous
deed. We vehemently discredit it. And we opine
the most suitable verdict be passed – even at this
pendulous moment.
This is so because we can infer that this Molester
is an individual with the four most important
faculties of the human mind; syllogism, will,
consciousness and control. We perceive he is
deemed a moral person; not an amoral. To that
end, he is responsible for all his reasoning,
choices, decisions and actions under any
circumstance as long as he is free and not
exposed to any form of coercion or threat.
Molesting is a human act, not an act of human;
consequently, no perpetrator of this denigrating
perpetration should ever go unsullied.
He should serve punishment for being an
insensate and preposterous being. And we
surmise the possibility of his dilatory dilemma into
a world of self-loath. He has indeed deprived
himself, consciously and unconsciously, the virtue
of benignity. Ergo, he is unworthy to be christened
a human. He has lost his claim to the highest level
of gregarious grandeur. He, considering all
clemency and subtlety, at least, deserves an
upside-down crucifixion.
And irrespective of his stance or the stability of his
cognitive reasoning, he is a Molester though not
caught in the act, confessed and treated
otherwise; one that under accommodating
circumstances could have been adjudged more
fairly if the reverse had been the case; one who
could have controlled his intimate inclinations,
one who could have suppressed the beast that lies
within him.
Nonetheless, he has tergiversated from the realm
of a culprit; he has now become a victim; a subject
to the most un-constituted abasement. Stripped of
his liberty. Deprived of his pro-soiled self-esteem.
Tried by a mob and not the law. Tried before an
unapologetic crowd. Convicted in the face of
imminent lynching and presented guilty. He has
become the second person to be Molested in two
days. But now it is not of his intimate disposition
but of his claim to rights of fair and unprejudiced
hearing. Not of his personality but his humanity.
And the excited mob, a collective of blood-seeking
rapists determined to see him pay for his crime
and his consummate taint.
The girl is a human. She is a daughter. She is a
sister. She is a friend. She is a lady. And like any of
the afore-mentioned she must be protected. But,
she is not feeble-minded. Do we then subscribe
blame to the girl and berate her waywardness – if
that even in the most lucid terms represents her
despicable role in the scenario or should we dub
her a victim of misplaced circumstances?
For we strive to signpost that to an
understandable level, she should explicate her
imbued faculty of discretion in every ramification.
And even if ignorant of such expectation, we seek
yet to uphold that she is responsible for the
company she keeps and the decisions she makes
because this is a university milieu and every
student irrespective of age is presumed an adult.
As a result, we as a collective, bar all reasons and
evidence, move to castrate such individuals who
believe the girl outright innocent and calumniate
blindly the superfluously overboard engagement
of the man. Let us not forget it takes two to tango
and logically this could be an instance of un-
premised principle of cause and effect.
Nevertheless, we do not aver her predicament apt
for her actions. No, we do not. At this juncture, it
is cognizant to note that our investigations
continue and we shall unearth all that appear
hidden on this issue.
We heretofore induce these revenge-seekers are
constituents of primordial backgrounds
hampering the majestic rationale of OAU Populace
in its entirety. We deduce hereby that they are
amenable tools of impaired vision led by an
overlord driven by cogno-emotional affections for
her fellow female folk. We deduce they are flag-
bearers of unfounded sanctimony that cannot
come out boldly to defend their righteousness.
Yet, we should construct another edifice of
intellectual appraisal of this mob’s swift response.
They did not hesitate to heed the lamentation of
one of their own. They arose, as a unified
advocating few, irrespective of relations or
contemporary status quo of the political family –
the Students Union, to fight the culprit and
vindicate the first victim. They flaunted the pride of
protocols to retrieve an almost petered-out dignity
of their veiled colleague.
However, justice infers equality before the law and
humans; a just and an unprejudiced treatment of
cases and a guided review of situations before a
final verdict is given. Alas, this is not justice. This
is an injustice of the highest pedestal. This is only
a guise in the mould of hackneyed stipulation
subjected to sketchy perceptions of self-appointed
activists and judges. The questions still
unanswered are: are they animated activists or
solitary sentimentalists, are they famed feminists
or infamous ‘fame-inists’?
We shall not point fingers yet and we shall neither
stick them deep in the enclaves of our pockets. We
shall not raise quizzical eye-brows now but we
shall blink our visages towards the unwarped truth
soon. For if this persists, sooner than anticipated,
a graver act of dehumanization looms. Then, we
would raise our voice – not in panic – but to judge.
And believe us, when we wield that sword of
judgment in your direction as we endeavour to
assert the strength of our pen, it might not bleed
you but it most inferentially might shave your
beard.
…to be continued.
.
IBIYEMI Ayodele
Chairman, Guild of Editors
ADELEGAN David A
General Secretary
ALAWODE Tosin O
Executive President

Twitter---@oaubrainard