Protecting sanctity of our moral values: Hail High Court
After reading portions of the judgement of the case between one Deborah Seyram Adablah, the young woman who brought a suit against a former Chief Finance officer of a bank over claims of sexual harassment, I personally sat wondering what was wrong with my head for feeling unhappy when the court earlier ruled on the Anas principle in a different case.
Advertisement
Why would one be happy with the reasons behind the ruling on the ‘side-chick’ case and not come to terms with the rejection of the ‘entrapment’ method in investigative journalism? Here I am purely talking about principles held by folks without a legal lens.
Reasons
The reasons given by the High Court are worth reflecting on, as they sit well with the religious and cultural values of the Ghanaian. Surely, the court should not be seen to be endorsing immorality.
The ‘‘law is settled that any agreement which has as its object future to illicit sexual relations is bad, as it is a contract to promote sexual immorality’’ a promise to pay ‘whatever to a side-chick’ even if made by deed under seal, would be void’’ is educative.
Again that ‘‘a contract which though seemingly innocent, has, to the knowledge of the parties, an immoral motive would also be void’’ is informative.
This should get the religious and cultural community excited. It is common knowledge that some young ladies get into relationships with rich people with the intention of exploiting them financially.
Some men are ‘compelled’ to invest heavily in their ‘side-chicks’ merely because they hold positions in society, for which reason, they will not want to be exposed or simply that they do not want their wives to know that they ‘vote in multiple polling stations’ which is unacceptable.
It makes sense to argue that such ‘immoral’ men must pay for their sins. However, thought that such men may have reached where they are due to, the contributions of their wives or families, make it fair for society to protect them from predatory sexual looters. The brotherhood won.
A colleague taunted when the news was published on graphic online.com. Why not? Another remarked on grounds that why would a man labour with his wife for years, only for a ‘side-chick’ to be the ultimate beneficiary, secretly and endorsed publicly by the court?
Justice John Bosco Nabarese’s remarks are therapeutic for decent men and women: Surely, as argued by the High Court Judge, it should not make any difference whether a lady ‘‘is a commercial sex worker or a common prostitute or whether she is merely the mistress of one man’’ provided that whatever is demanded ‘‘is for the purpose of committing the sin of fornication and such is immoral.’’
Sound
Reaping where one has not invested is not proper and that is why many view ruling as sound. The position of the court that whatever the young side-chick “sought to benefit was her participation in an illegal and immoral act with the Applicant by being in a parlor relationship for financial consideration or gains, a relationship, the act of which was not, according to the Respondent herself, in conformity with societal norms”, is apt.
That is because, as noted by the Justice there is ‘‘absolutely nothing glaring on the face of the pleadings that the Respondent has been able to point a single act performed outside the provision of sexual services’’.
As argued earlier, the implication of the ruling could be that whatever benefits one sought to achieve in his or her engagement with another through the use of means including entrapment for financial gains, to portray another as a social misfit, were immoral and could not be undone by our courts.
Let us reflect soberly on this case and make our judgement by relating it to the six things the Lord God hates, and the seven that are detestable to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers, as recorded in the book of Proverbs.
The writer is a lecturer,
Department of Political Science Education,
University of Education,
Winneba.
