When society puts Survivors on trial instead of those Accused of rape

The current issue of a young girl who died by suicide after allegedly being raped by a content creator in Nigeria has once again exposed an uncomfortable truth about our societies: we are often quicker to interrogate survivors than we are to condemn those accused of sexual violence. While investigations into individual cases must be left to the justice system, the public reaction reveals a culture that still struggles to understand consent and accountability.

One of the most harmful misconceptions is the belief that going to someone’s house automatically implies consent to sex. Legally and morally, this is false. Consent is not inferred from a location, an outfit, a previous relationship or a social visit. Consent must be freely given, informed, specific and can be withdrawn at any point. Entering someone’s home is permission to enter their home, not permission to be sexually violated.

Yet whenever allegations of rape emerge, the same questions are repeatedly directed at survivors. Why did she go there? What was she wearing? Why didn’t she leave? Why didn’t she report immediately? These questions subtly shift responsibility away from the alleged perpetrator and onto the person who says they were harmed. They reinforce the damaging idea that survivors are responsible for preventing rape rather than insisting that perpetrators are responsible for not committing it.

This pattern is not only unfair, it is dangerous. It discourages survivors from reporting crimes, fearing they will face public humiliation, character assassination and endless scrutiny. For many, the trauma does not end with the assault. It continues in police stations, courtrooms, social media comment sections and even within their own families.

Rape is a crime because someone chose to violate another person’s bodily autonomy. That choice belongs entirely to the perpetrator. The blame cannot be transferred to the survivor because they accepted an invitation, trusted someone or found themselves in a vulnerable situation. We do not ask victims of robbery why they owned expensive phones or victims of assault why they walked down a particular street. Yet survivors of sexual violence are routinely expected to justify every decision they made before the crime occurred.

As a society, we need to replace suspicion with empathy and prejudice with understanding. Supporting survivors does not mean abandoning due process. Every accused person deserves a fair hearing and every allegation deserves a proper investigation. But fairness should never require degrading survivors or treating them as though they are on trial simply for speaking out.

The young girl’s death should prompt more than momentary outrage. It should force us to examine the attitudes that make survivors feel isolated, doubted and blamed. We must build a culture where consent is properly understood, where legal principles guide public conversations and where accountability rests squarely on those who commit acts of sexual violence, not on those who endure them.

Until we stop asking survivors to explain why they were raped and start asking perpetrators why they chose to rape, we will continue to normalise the very violence we claim to oppose.

This OPINION is also published in the latest issue of Maseru Metro.