Discharges abound in all spheres of life. While one discharge can spell doom for a person, the other discharge can breed enormous dividends for a total turn around.

What has become strikingly revealing in the KKD rape saga that has lingered for a little over four months are two clear discharges; one, a discharge that lands you in trouble and the other , a discharge that sends an army of good news and relief to you.

Such were the twists and turns of the KKD saga. First, he does one of the discharges himself after he admits explicitly that he had sex with the 19-year-old lady but not without the consent of the ‘victim’. This discharge changed the sleeping place of the Entertainment icon who battled the case until finally, his lawyers secured bail for him.

The other discharge; the discharge that was not caused by KKD but by the Judge who sat on the case following a letter written by the victim to state prosecutors, saying they could no longer count on her testimony to prosecute the celebrated entertainment icon; it was her desire to see the charges dropped. The two-page letter by the 19-year-old cited the “media frenzy” that followed the arrest of KKD and the unceasing buzz and social media posts which she described as insensitive, for her decision. She said she was unable to continue cooperating with the police on the case.

I was greeted with this news shortly after journeying throughout the night on the sea without much catch, so I was intrigued but concluded that the conclusion reached by the court was not really surprising. It just kept long in arriving but however long it would have taken, the same conclusion would have arisen.

I went to the market square which was flooded with arguments on the decision of the court in the KKD matter.

From a distance, I stood to eavesdrop on the conversation from the market square, and it clear to me that the argument was based on two words: morality and legality. I listened with rapt attention to the passion, flare and energy behind the argument.

My deduction from the diverse arguments was that the word CONSENT is a very technical word that proves very stubborn even in court in a matter that ‘you and I were not there’.

I am not a lawyer but only a fisherman whose tools are the net, the canoe and the paddle, but I believe, it won’t be bad if I shared the little ‘pint of law’ in my fisherman blood.

In The State v. Gyimah, the facts proved by the prosecution was that the accused was a school teacher resident in the village and the girl was a school girl staying with her parents in the same village.

On the day of the alleged rape, the girl was sent on an errand by her mother when the accused called her in his room when she passed in front of his house. Evidence adduced at the trial proved that the accused had sexual intercourse with the alleged victim of the offence and that there was full penetration. The only issue was whether or not there was consent. The court held that the case for the prosecution had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and so the accused could not be held guilty of rape.  The judge who presided over the case, submitted:

“Firstly, there is some inherent improbability in the girl’s story that she was forced and that she shouted in distress. This is a house in which other tenants live, situated in an open place with people constantly passing and there were other residents such as the landlord of the house who were never called, inmates of the house testified that they were in the house that morning and that they never heard any shouts. I find their evidence convincing and I believe them.

Secondly, the conduct of the girl herself indicates her willingness. She asks the court to believe that she walked straight into accused’s room in all innocence. There is no evidence that the accused induced her by a ruse or deceit to join him in the room. There is no evidence that when she shouted the accused attempted to place his hand on her mouth.

…Though pressed by the accused on the shoulder, [the girl] “had the free use of her limbs and never slapped or attempted to kick the accused…” The girl only put up an act by means of false cries, out of a sense of shame when her mother and sister caught her “in a shameful and disgraceful act red-handed.”

Third, the doctor’s report indicated that the girl’s hymen had been previously perforated and showed no recent injury and no bruises or violence either to the hymen or elsewhere on the girl.

Fourth, from the evidence, the girl’s mother’s first reaction was anger, to which the girl remained silent, he said, “her silent conduct satisfied me as being consistent with the accused story that she consented to the act.”

Thus, in the judge’s view, so long as nobody in the accused person’s house heard the complainant shout, the complainant did not struggle with the accused, there was no evidence of recent perforation of the complainant’s hymen and no bruises on the complainant and the complainant did not speak up after her mother discovered her and the accused and asked what the complainant was doing in the accused’s room, then the complainant had consented to the sexual act.

However, it is also probable that all these facts may have existed and still the complainant would not have consented to sexual intercourse with the accused person.

Another rape case, in which the issue turned on consent, is Agbemanya v. the State.

In that case the alleged rape victim, a girl of seventeen years, lived with her parents and the appellant was a relation to the mother of the girl and frequently visited them.

The case of the prosecution was that the girl accompanied the accused to visit his friend’s house. When they got there, they entered a room which was unoccupied.

The appellant, undressed, locked the door, struggled with the girl and had sexual intercourse with her. The accused then took her back home. The accused admitted having sexual intercourse with the girl but maintained it was with her consent.

He said although she had put up some resistance she later yielded voluntarily to the intercourse.

Though convicted by the trial court, the appellant’s appeal was allowed. The appellate judge said: “Was the struggle which took place a genuine registration of non-consent?” He asked if it was credible that the girl sat and watched the accused strip off his clothes and lock the door thereafter, if she had not consented. Thus, the judge expected the girl to have proved that she tried to escape when she saw the accused strip off his clothes and lock the door. The judge also said although the girl’s pant was bloodstained they were not damaged because she took them off herself for the purpose of the intercourse. The trial judge, according to the appellate judge, did not direct himself and the assessors on the key issue, which was, “which of the two conflicting accounts was most probable? A question of fact.”

The evidence according to the appellate judge, when taken as a whole, both for the prosecution and the defence, established a very strong probability that there was such consent. The appellant was, therefore, in the judge’s view, wrongly convicted.

So you see, this ‘animal’ called CONSENT has a very tough skin and proves very difficult but one thing remains clear, that before the matter gets to the court of law, the one who discharged whether appropriately or inappropriately might have to endure until there is another discharge that can bring some relief to him.

Please, rape is a huge crime and a grave sin against the soul of the person alleged to have been raped.

Before you discharge, know where you discharge and discharge appropriately.

The writer, Richard Kwadwo Nyarko, is a multimedia journalist. His email: quajo2009@gmail.com. Tweet:@quajo2009. Facebook: Richard Kwadwo Nyarko