By Latrishka Thomas
A barber is currently on trial in the High Court, accused of raping his 14-year-old neighbour at her home in February 2023.
The complainant, whose identity is being protected because she was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, told the court that the defendant, who lived nearby and cut hair as his trade, came to her home on a Saturday morning asking for her aunt.
She said that on the day of the incident, she was lying on her bed scrolling through her phone, waiting for dance practice, when she heard a knock at the door. She said she asked who it was, and upon hearing the defendant identify himself, opened the door slightly. He asked if her aunt was home, and when she told him no, he pushed the door open, held her by the waist, and kissed her.
The complainant, who recalled wearing a floral dress that day, said the defendant pulled down the strap of her dress and continued touching her before pulling down his pants slightly and having sex with her. She said she was on her period at the time, which increased the pain, and that she begged him to stop and cried throughout, but he did not stop. She said the defendant was seen shaking his head during the act.
She said the incident took place in her grandmother’s room, the first room upon entering the house. Afterward, she said, the defendant pulled his pants back up while she was still crying and asked if she had WhatsApp, to which she replied that her aunt did not allow her to have it. He told her he would return, then left. She said she called her aunt and was subsequently taken to the police station.
Under cross-examination by defence attorney Sherfield Bowen, the complainant admitted that when she first went to police, she did not tell them the full account of what happened. She agreed that she had told police only that the defendant felt her underwear, realised she was wearing a pad, and left.
She agreed that she used to receive corporal punishment occasionally when she “did something out of the way,” and confirmed that one of the rules of the house was that no boy was permitted to visit. She agreed that she had violated that rule and that she was afraid the defendant would report it.
It was put to her that she changed her story to allege rape. She denied this, saying she had simply been too afraid to tell police everything at first. She confirmed that a boy who had visited her was only mentioned once she gave police the fuller account, and that this came after they asked her questions based on information provided by the defendant.
She denied that she became scared only when she learned she would have to go to the doctor, but agreed that it was upon learning she would be medically examined that she gave the full account. She agreed she had not wanted her family to find out about the boy’s visit but maintained that her second version of the ordeal was not given to cover up the boy’s visit, explaining that it came after she spoke to her grandmother, the person she confides in most, because she was genuinely afraid the defendant might return and hurt her. She agreed, however, that she was more afraid of being punished if her family found out about the boy than of anything else.
In re-examination, the complainant clarified that there was nothing romantic between her and the boy, who she described as a school friend. Asked what occurred during his visit, she said they had watched television, talked about school, and that he left after receiving a message.
The complainant’s aunt, with whom she lived, testified next, describing her niece as “kind and mannerly”.
She told the court that on the morning of the incident, she and the complainant had gone to the market together, after which she put her niece in a taxi to go home while she went to work. She said she later received a call from the complainant, followed by a call from the defendant, who told her the complainant “wants to put him in problems.” Asked what he meant, she said he told her the complainant was trying to frame him for rape. She said she asked him why, and he responded that he had gone to the house and spoken with the complainant but denied doing anything to her.
She said she ended the call, after which the defendant continued sending her voice notes, including one asking her to accompany him to the police station to clear his name.
Under cross-examination, the aunt said she was not aware that her brother and his girlfriend had gone to the defendant’s barbershop and attempted to assault him. She said she was only now finding out that a boy had been inside the house. When her police statement was put to her, it reflected that she had learned at the time of giving the statement about someone coming to the house. She denied ever beating the complainant frequently and denied that the complainant was afraid to speak to her.
In response to a question from the jury about how the defendant obtained her phone number, the aunt explained that he had once misplaced his phone and used her phone to call himself, which was how he came to have her number.
A third witness, the complainant’s step-aunt, described the complainant as quiet and disclosed that the defendant had cut her own children’s hair on a few occasions.
She testified that she received a call and went to meet the complainant, who was crying and told her something had happened. She said she called out for the defendant, but he did not respond, so she took the complainant to the police station. After statements were given, she said, they went to the clinic for an examination, and the complainant was then taken to stay at her home.
Under cross-examination, the step-aunt confirmed she was present when the complainant gave her statement to police and that she had signed the statement. She said she did not hear the complainant tell police that the defendant had realised she was wearing a pad and left. When shown the statement, she confirmed her signature and was permitted to read it, after which she confirmed that the complainant had indeed told police that the defendant left after realising she was on her period.
The trial continues today.
