Assumption VS Consent

The other day I had the opportunity to attend a court case which was of immense interest to me. I cannot divulge what the case was about because of the victim’s interests but let us just say it was of a

human rights violations nature. On the stand, was the witness of the crime and she was being

questioned by the oppositions lawyer. The story goes; on the fateful night, the said witness left with the accused after a night out of partying. They entered into a filling station and the accused went and

bought himself a pack of cigarettes and a box of condoms.

According to the lawyer, this should have pronounced to the witness that he was intending to engage in sexual relations with the witness; since of-course they had once had a sexual encounter before. According to the witness, she had no intention of engaging in a sexual relation with the accused on the said night; in-fact, she had no interest on the said accused because she had no emotional attraction to him and obviously because there had not been any talks on the said night about interactions. In-fact the witness just got a lift home and was willing to spend the night on her own.

Now, does it mean that just because you saw someone purchase a box of condoms, and that he or she

was your previous lover that you intend or are obliged to sleep with him or her? Does it mean that just because you requested a ride home that you are willing to engage in sexual relations? Is it not that you might be purchasing those condoms for you and your consenting lover at home? Is not that you may just be purchasing the condoms since you had run out of them at home and you are just replacing them for another sexual encounter with your consenting partner? For so long, we have been advocating for consent and not assumption. Assumption as defined by the dictionary is something that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. A presupposition of an act or decision; in loose terminology.

On the contrary, consent is permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. These

two terms cannot be used interchangeably because in one of them, the party has to literally agree whilst in the latter, one practically ‘supposes’ that he or she has agreed. Whether one is intoxicated or not; an assumption serves no basis to engage in sexual intercourse with them. It goes without saying that in as much as the lawyer was defending his client on this case, human rights should remain up-holded.

According to the human rights declaration by the United Nations, article 18 and 19 clearly state that

everyone has the right to freedom of thought and conscience. Correspondingly, article 19 alludes that

everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In a nutshell, everyone’s opinion matters and this is inclusive of the freedom to consent.

Clearly the witness on the stand had a right to consent to the accused supposed assumptions of him

engaging in sexual relations with her. The lawyer on the other hand had no right to badger the witness

on assumptions that just because she was with the accused during his procurement of condoms, that

she had intentions of engaging in sexual relations with him. Let our court systems uphold laws and

conserve human rights in all levels.