𝐒 𝟓𝟑 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 which contains the “𝑅𝑎𝑝𝑒 𝑆ℎ𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝐿𝑎𝑤𝑠” or specific defenses that an accused can use in a rape trial, are very problematic and need to be reviewed by @MoGFSSmv and @mvpeoplesmajlis.

𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟓𝟑 (𝐧𝐨𝐨𝐧𝐮) 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒. A judge presiding over a rape trial can question the credibility of a rape victim based on evidence as to his/her 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 and 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.

Neither the 𝐒𝐎𝐀 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 nor case law sheds any light on what is meant by 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (ނަފްސުގެ އަބުރުވެރިކަން) or 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 (އަޚްލާޤު) of a rape victim. But this may refer to past sexual history (with accused or with others) etc.

𝐒 𝟓𝟑 (𝐧𝐨𝐨𝐧𝐮) 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐎𝐀 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 opens the door for evidence as to the character of a rape victim to be used to determine a victim less worthy of belief if they (a) are sexually active; or (b) have a criminal record.

No regard is given in 𝐒 𝟓𝟑 (𝐧𝐨𝐨𝐧𝐮) 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐎𝐀 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 to the prejudicial nature of character evidence. It is also based on the horrible belief that a victim’s behavior makes them less worthy of being protected from having their bodies violated.

This belief that rape is an occupational hazard for sex workers or a just desserts for someone with more liberal values or looser morals is being echoed in society. That makes it all the more important to amend 𝐒 𝟓𝟑 (𝐧𝐨𝐨𝐧𝐮) 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐎𝐀 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 ASAP.

𝐒 𝟓𝟑 (𝐛𝐚𝐚) 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐎𝐀 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 allows a judge to decide on the relative credibility of the victim against the accused in deciding whether rape has occurred.

Whether an accused is guilty or not if the crime accused should depend on the evidence before a judge and not some subjective determination of the merits of the victim’s story against the accused’s account. 𝐒 𝟓𝟑 (𝐛𝐚𝐚) 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐎𝐀 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 must be amended.

𝐒 𝟓𝟑 (𝐫𝐚𝐚) 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐎𝐀 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 takes a jab at the victim’s history with the accused by allowing the defense to use 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 (ހިނގާފައިވާ މުޢާމަލާތްތައް) to negate a rape charge.

𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 (ހިނގާފައިވާ މުޢާމަލާތްތައް) between a rape victim and a suspect probably refers to their past sexual history. This is once more troublesome and opens the door for the victim’s credibility to be questioned or consent to be implied based on relationship

Rape by its nature is a crime of an intimate nature and often occurs between individuals who know each other intimately. The relationship between a victim and a suspect actually makes the crime MORE likely to have happened rather than less.

We need to do away with or revise 𝐒 𝟓𝟑 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 urgently to ensure successful convictions in rape cases and to encourage victims to come forward regardless of their past or their moral character.

Nobody excuses burglary because someone installed a weak lock. Nobody excuses murder because the victim is a gangster exposed to violence. So why should a rape victim’s morality, history and relationship with the perpetrator be on trial? #RemovetheRapeShield.