Dear Editor,
As by chance, this week past France has had to deal with a similar case to that of Henry Greene. Christian Dorival, at 53, is a very senior functionary in French Guiana’s power structure. He is the Sécretaire Général at the Sous-Préfecture at St Laurent. The prefectures are the government representatives and hold the power, among others, to grant residency to foreigners.
Mr Dorival was accused, apparently by colleagues and community leaders, of having transformed his office into a recruitment centre for personal lovers. The police got to work and investigations threw up several cases of women who had fallen into the role of sexual partners and some of whom received residency permits in the course of the relationship. Ten of these women were persuaded to testify against him. He was detained when it was felt by the police that a strong enough case had been assembled. The word on the street was that Christian was finally going to get what all felt that he deserved. The charges were rape, sexual harassment and “passive corruption.”
On Wednesday the judges ‘d’instruction‘ who perform the role of the DPP here, decided to drop charges and to release him. There was a hue and cry. But the judgment was clear. The accusations were impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt given the circumstantial evidence and the defence team would have easily dispensed with the witnesses. The trial would have been a waste of taxpayers money with very little chance of prosecutorial success. It was felt that the charges were weak or inappropriate given the circumstantial evidence. The similarity to the Chang decision is evident. And those who read his decision would concur with his reasoning.
So, contrary to what some would have us believe, the most ‘victim-friendly‘ systems in the world have had to erect safeguards in certain kinds of legal process, conscious of the risks of malicious prosecution, false accusation and precisely the psychological conditions of the so-called victims offering themselves up to the courts and to the public and family to be absolved.
It is possible that, among the many commentators excited at the thought of Mr Greene’s condemnation and sentencing, are men who would have bought the victim’s story. Who, getting wind of a partner or girlfriend going out with Mr Greene, reading the text messages and listening to her story, would have managed to persuade themselves that Greene “raped” her. But the question is, had the wife or daughter of these men been caught in the act would they have unreservedly given credence to her version? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
The written decision by CJ Chang is rich in its references to the testimonies of some of the actors. A neutral reader understands only that a woman, after trying to corrupt a government official, saunters into a hotel with him, and emerges four hours later to tranquilly share “a food.“ Calls and texts him on the phone in the days after. Arranges other rendezvous to receive money to buy windows. Then, after he goes silent for a week, suddenly wakes up with the feeling that she had been had.
Is this what we propose to our women as examples of victimhood and of the way our courts should be used? What is the message that is being sent? Is it that, where people of whom we disapprove are concerned, any and all blows are fair? That the courts and police are there to be used for or against you irrespective of the merits of the case.
Some, clearly, wanted CJ Chang to take a political decision. As I have said, one ought to respect the dignity of his office. One does not expect him to lead the mob. One strives sincerely for a new political and administrative culture where Mr Greene gets the same treatment as your friend or political ally.
Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr
