The social media landscape has been on fire today following the release of a series of rape accusations against some prominent Ghanaian lawyers by the effervescent Canadian based Ghanaian lawyer, Kuukuwa Andam.
To say that Kuukuwa’s story has generated intense social media discussions would be an understatement.
Some comments, typically of Ghanaians, have focused on the wrong part of the story. Someone was raped and all some people can talk about is that she was leaving a ‘bad’ life by agreeing to sleep with a married man for money.
GhanaCelebrities.Com editor Chris-Vincent Agyapong Febiri has responded to those comments, calling for the supposed ‘immoral’ aspect of the conversation to be removed from the illegality of raping a young lady mercilessly.
Chris writes on Facebook:
“A Ghanaian lawyer and a Ph.D student, Kuukuwa Andam has accused two prominent Ghanaians of having raped her—one, several times.
She states that, the current President of the Ghana Bar Association-Anthony Forson Jnr raped her in a hotel in United States about 7 years ago when they were dating.
Now, this has erupted into several social media commentaries—on the back of the fact that Kuukuwa mentions that the man is/was married at the time which she knew and still was dating him.
People seem to say that, it was wrong for her to be dating a married man and even agree to have s*x with him for money—by extension, saying, she called it upon herself.
Though many people are looking at this from the moral perspective, Kuukuwa’s issue with the man has nothing to do with morals, rather legal.
It’s immoral for her to be dating a married man, for her to agree to have s*x with him and for her to travel many hours to his hotel, intending to do this for financial gains. For those who live by certain moral compass, that’s true in the realm of morality.
But if you would be honest with yourself, we are all immoral in many aspects of our lives and morality is subjective, on many fronts.
So, it’s true that Kuukuwa is immoral, by the Ghanaian society measure and I don’t think she would attempt to argue against that.
However, she is not arguing that she was morally wronged by this man in anyway, rather, she says, she was legally wronged—RAPED.
She says she intended to have s*x with the man, agreed to have s*x but requested that a condom be used. The man’s failure to adhere to her request and forcefully doing it his way, without her consent is what she is talking about.
The two are separate things—there is a clear distinction between law and morality, though in Jurisprudence, they sometimes merge.
When a woman says NO or even shakes her head in the negative, just walk away–even if in a relationship.”