MAJAGA STILL IN TROUBLE
Child rights organisations: Majaga still has a case to answer
► We did not tamper with results – Defence Attorney
► Paternity results do not prove guilt or innocence
► Child may have been defiled by many men
► Paternity results prove no guilt or innocence – Defence ► Attorney Child might have been defiled by more than one person - Activists
Child Rights activists say although the highly anticipated paternity test results in the defilement case involving Member of Parliament for Nata-Gweta Polson Majaga are confirmed to be negative, this does not exonerate him from suspicions of defilement.
Majaga’s defense attorney, Jeremeya Mishingo of Jeremeya Attorneys confirmed to The Midweek Sun that they received the negative results last week from the investigating officer.
Childcare organisations are concerned that like many other cases of defilement and sexual abuse against children, this might not see the light of day. “Him not being the father is not proof that he did not defile the minor.”
Some worry about the trend of investigation, that in the event that pregnancy occurs in a defilement incident, the Police tend to centre their case solely on the proof of pregnancy and ignore other elements. The fatal flaw is pregnancy rather than making the sexual crime of defilement the focus.
Infact, child rights activists are convinced that the negative results could unearth a more disturbing picture that indicates that the minor concerned has clearly been defiled or raped by possibly more than one person and therefore society has failed to protect her.
Young Love, an organisation that works with and for youth through education and health programmes in schools, believes that DNA results do not prove that he was not engaged in a sexual relationship or any type of relationship with the minor. However, had this been a paternity case, then the MP would be exonerated, however, as a defilement case, the DNA does not absence of any sexual relations.
Young Love is committed to the protection and promotion of the Children’s Act and other apparatus that are out in place to ensure that children are protected.
Defense attorney Jeremeya concurs that while the paternity results have come out negative, they don’t prove guilt or innocence, but become part of the evidence that will be presented. “I also can’t say whether the negative results will strengthen or weaken the case. I will leave that to commentators out there,” Jeremeya said.
Jeremeya has also dismissed chances of tampering with results on their part, stating that standard procedure is that from the Police Lab where the test was conducted, they were handed over to the investigating officer who was then instructed by the court to share them with him and his client. In addition, when such tests are ordered by the court, an affidavit that swears to strict following of procedure is done to avoid flaws.
Some child rights activists have also come out to say the court should not overlook the fact that the defense contested the paternity test when it was first ordered by the court. Jeremeya’s response is that they contested the test because they believed that the prosecution was driven by excitement to arrest his client before they could gather all evidence and complete investigations into the allegations.
“We contested the test because we didn’t want a situation where we are brought before court while investigations were ongoing. We wanted the prosecution to complete their investigations, gather all evidence. We would then be ready to come and defend our case,” Jeremeya said, adding that the negative results vindicate what they said from the beginning that investigations should have been done before.
Shedding light on his client’s state of mind regarding the results, Jeremeya said the negative results do not mean much to his client, who believes that he was falsely accused from the beginning and still maintains his innocence.
Jeremeya is however relieved that they will go back to court next month on November 3 in Maun, where trial dates will now be set.
Chairman of the Child Rights Network, Motshwari Kitso said they were shocked by the announcement of the results in a local newspaper. “The assumption was that since the paternity test was ordered by the court, the results would come through the same court, but we gathered from the public domain that the results were out and were negative,” he said.
Kitso agrees that the negative result of the paternity should not be used to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not defile the child.
Though reluctant to be drawn into discussing the case, Kitso said they are still weighing possible options of how to proceed to ensure that if a crime has been committed against a 16-year old child, justice should prevail. Majaga is accused of defiling a 16- year- old girl, who has since given
birth.