I-CAN-GHANA

I was intrigued by a campaign for the ‘legalization’ of prostitution in Ghana, particularly when that was coming from the Ghana Aids Commission. I wrote this piece which got published in the Daily Graphic. Please read on:

This campaign pre-supposes that prostitution is illegal, because calling for ‘legalization’ of a thing assumes that the thing is unlawful in the first place. My contention, however, is that prostitution, as defined in our statute books, is not an offence. Accordingly calls for its ‘legalization’ have no bases in the law. Simply, there is nothing to legalize, as far as prostitution as an act is concerned. What the law does is to criminalize certain acts that accompany or are related, supplementary or incidental to the actual act of prostitution. I would not want to believe that what the “Legalize Prostitution” campaigners are asking, is for those related offences to be legalized. I beg to differ. It would appear that the campaigners have not averted their minds to the real impact of their argument in the face of the law. The purpose of this piece to highlight what the law actually says because a debate or campaign that fails to take into consideration the actual state of the law is, respectfully, uninformed and amiss.

Definition
The Criminal Code defines the term “prostitution” to include:

“… the offering by a person of his body commonly for acts of lewdness for payment although there is no act or offer of an act of ordinary sexual connexion.”

The use of the word “include” could mean that the definition is not absolute and all encompassing. It could also mean that the meaning of the word is so well known, accepted and notorious that all that is required is to expand its scope to cover possible gray areas. Whichever way one looks at it, the above definition contains three key ingredients as follows:

(1) Offer by a person of his/her body: The definition is not limited by gender. By this ingredient the person must present or tender his/her body to another person for the purposes stated in the definition. Accordingly, if there is no such offer of a person’s body by that person, the act will not fall within the legal definition.

(2) Acts of lewdness: The definition covers “lewdness” whether or not it involves, results in or leads to actual sexual acts. Although the Criminal Code does not define the word “lewdness,” that word is generally accepted to be synonymous with other terms such as gross indecency, licentiousness, immoral or degenerate conduct, and lustful and lecherous acts.

(3) Payment: In a restricted legal sense a payment is the performance of a duty, promise or obligation, or the discharge of a debt or liability by delivering money or something else, where the money or other thing is accepted as extinguishing or reducing the debt or obligation. In effect the “acts of lewdness” must create a debt or obligation in favour of the person who offered his/her body (the “prostitute”). Payment then occurs where the prostitute accepts anything as imbursement or compensation for the said use of his/her body.

Nowhere in the Criminal Code is prostitution, as defined above, made a crime. It is on this basis that I consider the “Legalize Prostitution” campaign as stillborn and fundamentally and incurably flawed. However, Chapter 7 of the Code, which is aptly headed “Offences Against Public Morals”, criminalizes certain acts that are closely related to prostitution, and it is a discussion of these that I now turn.

Exposing Children to Prostitution
The first related crime is committed by a person who has the custody, charge or care of a child under the age of 16, and allows or permits that child to reside in or frequent a brothel. A brothel, according to the Code, is any premises or room used for prostitution purposes. There is persuasive authority to the effect that a prostitute who lives with his/her child in premises that he/she uses for prostitution is guilty of this crime. This provision, seeks to protect children from exposure to prostitution. The question to ask of the ‘Legalize Prostitution’ campaigners is this: “Is this what you want to be legalized?” Surely, the campaigners are not saying that the law should be amended to permit children to live in or visit brothels.

‘Pimping’
The second related crime is committed by a person who either (i) “knowingly” lives on the earnings of prostitution, or (ii) for the purposes of gain, exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in a manner that aids, abets or compels prostitution. This covers what is generally referred to as “pimping”. It is arguable that the prostitute also commits this offence because he/she lives on the earnings of prostitution. However, a full reading of the law shows that that provision only applies to a person, other than the prostitute, who knowingly lives on such earnings. The Code shows this by empowering District Magistrates to issue search and arrest warrants where there is evidence on oath that any person residing in or frequenting a brothel “is living wholly or in part on the earnings of any prostitute.” Further, a person who (i) lives with a prostitute, (ii) is habitually in the company of a prostitute or (iii) exercises any control over a prostitute, is deemed to be “knowingly” living on the earnings of prostitution, unless he is able to satisfy the court to the contrary. There is persuasive authority to the effect that a person who allows a prostitute to have the use of his room at specified times at a charge is guilty of this crime.

Pimps are known to be people who control prostitutes and subject them to all forms of maltreatment, thereby keeping the prostitutes in subjection and under their influence. Often this is against the will of the prostitutes themselves, some of whom would gladly leave the ‘profession’ but for the morbid fear that they have of such criminals. I am yet to hear of a pimp who would be so depraved that he will allow his/her child to become a prostitute. The question to ask of the ‘Legalize Prostitution’ campaigners is this: “Is this what you want to be legalized?” Surely, the campaigners cannot be arguing that we should amend the law and unleashing such criminals on society.

Soliciting or Importuning
The third related crime is committed by a person who publicly, persistently solicits or importunes to obtain clients for a prostitute or for any other immoral purpose. Soliciting connotes begging and pleading for clientele, whilst importuning denotes a more aggressive pestering and harassment of prospective patrons. In one decided case, a person who stood at street corners, made faces and smiled at people, made suggestive gestures with the mouth, and paid several visits to public toilets, was held to be guilty of this offence even if he did not speak with or touch anyone; and even the absence of evidence that his acts had any impact on anyone was not considered a sufficient defence.

I am not certain if any of the ‘Legalize Prostitution’ campaigners has been solicited or importuned by a prostitute, which can be a most revolting experience. If this is removed from our statute books as an offence, it will expose all of us to blatant, shameless and barefaced approaches and harassment by prostitutes who are ‘marketing their wares’. The question to ask of the ‘Legalize Prostitution’ campaigners is this: “Is this what you want to be legalized?” The campaigners will have to show us what society will stand to gain if by freeing up prostitutes to bang on our cars (pun unintended) and accost law-abiding people on the streets.

Keeping Brothels
The fourth related crime is committed by a person who keeps a brothel. A person is guilty of this crime if he/she (i) keeps, manages or assists in managing a brothel, (ii) as a tenant, knowingly permits premises to be used as a brothel or for habitual prostitution, or (iii) as a landlord, rents out premises with the knowledge that it will be used as a brothel. The question to ask of the ‘Legalize Prostitution’ campaigners is this: “Is this what you want to be legalized?” The campaigners have to show how the establishment up huge brothels in Ghana, and probably advertising the services provided in our newspapers and on radio and television will help the society.

Other ‘Related’ Crimes
The other crimes provided for under Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code are not directly related to prostitution. These are:

1. Publicly and wilfully committing grossly indecent acts (such as having sex in a public place);
2. Compelling a person to undergo immoral or indecent widowhood rites;
3. Publishing or selling books, objects or matters of an obscene nature (such as pornography);
4. Making indecent inscriptions at any public place; and
5. Advertising material relating to venereal diseases, sexual infirmity and aphrodisiacs without the authority of the Minister of Health.

Conclusion
In conclusion, prostitution is said to exist when (i) a person offers his/her body, (ii) for lewd acts, and (iii) for payment. The act of prostitution per se is not an offence, but certain specified related acts are criminal. Since prostitution itself is not an offence, it stands to reason that it cannot be legalized, and calls for its legalization are respectfully, uninformed. What the law says is that although prostitution is not an offence, it is an offence to (i) publicly solicit for clients, (ii) expose children to brothels, (iii) work as a pimp, and/or (iv) keep brothels. These are the acts that are criminalized by our law, ought to remains prohibited by our law, and I would not want to believe that this is what the campaign is really about.

This entry was posted on Friday, July 10th, 2009 at 06:23 and is filed under Social Issues, The Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.