By: Shehu Bashir Esq.
We are living in a politically charged time where our sense of judgement is often driven by emotions and sentiments. It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between true and natural justice versus emotional judgment.
What may become of “justice” may be the volume of defence or attacks for or against a certain interest. Often times, silence may be golden. However, too much reticent may be interpreted as admission of guilt.
I dread law and the “volatility” of its technical application. The likelihood for justice to be miscarried is a 50/50 chance. Even the error of your defence attorney may cause the innocent to be so declared as a criminal. I must acknowledge that sometimes, public opinion “intimidates” judicial process to that extent that opinion are seeing as the verdict of the law.
God help you if you are on the bad book of the people who are waiting to see you slip in a gaffe, you will be eaten raw. Like mortuary attendants and undertakers, they are in a hurry to bury you even before a doctor-pathologist confirms that you are dead.
In your death, they cash in, in fame and in treasure. Television stations, Newspapers and social media platforms are all waiting to blog you off for their subscribers to stream. They sell your reputation off like you don’t have a family who will lose from your loss. They care not about what becomes of your existence but about the benefit to them.
In a sensitive situation like this, it is always better for the general public to look more and talk less. It will be unnecessary and needless for anyone to jump into the bandwagon of sentiments and emotions just to appear to have a say, while truly complicating matter, subtly taking a biased side and covertly inciting hatred.
No matter how someone tries to make his or her opinion cryptic in bias, a lot of people are sufficiently intellectually equipped enough to understand the undercurrent. All roads lead to hell for a rival who doesn’t like what you have and can’t phantom how you got there. They just want to pull you down.
In every event, we learn one or two things. No histury without an event. This kind of event too will create a rich history and from that legal history, we will learn something new. Human interactions are naturally laced with complexities.
The smoke of accusation travels higher to the sky than the flush of the water to quench the fire that produced the smoke in the first place. That is why, in most cases, it may be smarter and wiser to avoid a public spat. This is better than joining issues in attack or defence unless you are legally required to do so. Out of ten ears that may hear it, often times, only about two may believe the retraction even after the proof of innocence.
The accusation of criminal allegation is so easy to make but it full proof may fall short of credibility. You dare not even try to make any sense of the logicality or illogicality of such accusation, otherwise, you will be branded an “enabler” of the perceived wrong.
Names are difficult to build. It can take a life time to reach the zenith of your success. However, if care is not taken, at almost the end of your life, a minute airtime on tv or a paragraph snippet on social media can ruin everything you have used a century to build.
As it has been seen many times in many similar cases, an accuser may not necessarily be armed with any weapon of evidence other than exploitation of public sentiment based on subjective emotions. Yet, the damage on the accused may never be truly remedied.
In the law of contract, an offer of intention can only become binding after acceptance. A rejected offer without consideration from the offeror and without forceful implementation by the same offeror cannot be truly categorized as “intimidation”, atleast, at first instance.
It can only become a subject of wrong when the offer is rejected outrightly without the intention (by the supposed victim ) to use same as a bait. The case of victimization can be established when the accused is cunningly implementing his/her offer with coercion against the will of the offeree.
Even at that, the cause must be shown to the effect that the accuser is being victimized as a result of the rejection of the offer. This will include hard evidence premised on a proof beyond reasonable doubt principle. Furthermore, the accuser must show cause to the effect that the accused has tried to take advantage of him/her in the referenced situation. Hearsay will not be a solid proof of evidence.
The onus to prove the crime of coercion and intimidation is as heavy as the onus on a prosecutor whose burden it is to prove beyond reasonable doubt on the veracity of the accusation. This is what diligent criminal prosecution requires, not sentiment, not emotions, not opinions.
The testimony of witnesses to a crime cannot and must not be at variance. Whereas, any documented contradiction in evidence against the accused will be seen as inconsistent and afterthought. An easy way to prove the innocence of the accused.
In this scenario, a lot will go into play if this matter goes further. It is either the accuser comes up with solid evidence or retract in honour to prevent further damage to one’s credibility. This however, does not necessarily give a leeway to the accused as the burden of innocence can shift at anytime upon the proof by the one who asserts. Law can be very intriguing, flexible and dynamic sometimes.
The court they say is lot a Father Christmas. It is like a garbage in, garbage out process. What you get as output depends on what you give as input. Judicial process will not help your case if you cannot prove it by yourself. Evidence Act is very detailed on what needs to be done to prove any weighty criminal allegation.
I fear the situation where the wrong party will be taken as the victim while the true victim is subjected to public persecution. Nothing is more dangerous than for an innocent person to be punished unjustly. I fear the adjudication of a criminal matter where the defendant has already been sentenced in the court of public opinion, especially social media even before a judicial trial.
In everything, credibility matters. A pattern of attitude which is often used to gain emotional advantage, to get what you want, can become a subject of proof to determine the credibility or otherwise of an accusation.
Intimidating a party into a contract, blackmailing another fellow into submission, false accusations against several other people in the past using the same method may be an alibi to counter claim and prove malicious accusations. The law is just the law. It requires a lot to become justice.
All in all, whatever is the situation you find yourself, always make sure you are not on the wrong side of the law.
*GOD IS HERE*
