In case of man accused of abusing his two children who was declared not guilty
The Court of Appeal began hearing the appeal of the Public Prosecution Service against the ruling of the judge in the criminal case of the man G. On November 21, 2023, the judge declared G. not guilty of the accusation that he abused his two minor children.
It became clear during the hearing that G. stated that since February 2022 he had left the home after he caught his ex-wife with another man, B., who works in the media, inside his house. This revelation surprised both the Court and the Prosecutor General (PG). The PG requested the Court to postpone the case in order to conduct further investigation.
The Prosecutor General had accused E.G. of rape and committing immoral acts with his two minor children.
Suspect Denies Allegations
The Court asked G. how events unfolded. G. stated that things went wrong because people began saying he was a pedophile and that he should be jailed. He said he no longer had contact with the children. His lawyer, Mr. Mohamed, explained that during his detention a divorce took place and that certain matters remained pending due to the case.
The Court asked G. why he believed the children had made statements against him. According to G., he believes others influenced the children to make those statements. He explained that in February 2022 he caught his ex-wife, C., with another man, B., who works in the media, and then left the house. He told the Court that his ex-wife tried to reconcile with him, but he refused to forgive her.
- told the Court he believes his ex-wife instigated the children against him. He emphasized strongly that he is convinced his children would never make such accusations on their own. He stated that he had a very close relationship with them.
- further remarked that after he left the house, the children began making such statements and were watching pornographic movies on a tablet. He said he was shocked by this. The Court asked whether the children might have seen him and his ex-wife watching pornography. G. denied this. The Court noted that the children were watching things they did not understand. G. insisted that when he had relations with his ex-wife, the children were not at home.
The Court also noted that when the mother discovered the children watching pornography, they did not appear frightened but behaved normally.
- stated he was certain he never allowed his children to watch pornography and that he does not know how they accessed such material on the tablet.
Email Evidence Raises Questions
The Court indicated that more than 500 videos were found. The Court mentioned an email address containing the suspect’s name, but G. told the Court that it was not his email. He provided his own email address and stated that not only he, but also his ex-wife C., used that account.
The Court stated that there was an account on a pornography website using G.’s name. G. responded that he knew nothing about it because it was not his email address.
Accused Suspects Setup by Ex-Wife
- told the Court that his ex-wife’s sister had complained about why the ex-wife allowed the children to roam the streets. The Court noted that the sister said the ex-wife told her what G. had allegedly done and that she was shocked.
- maintained firmly that he never abused his children and suspects that his ex-wife C. orchestrated the situation so the children would testify against him.
The Court indicated that the judge in the Court of First Instance compared the children’s statements and found differences. The children gave separate statements to a psychiatrist where they were receiving treatment. The Court also noted that the organization Stichting Hunto reported that a psychologist concluded the children had experienced sexual trauma. This conclusion was reached after the children were asked to make certain drawings.
- told the Court he had never noticed such issues with his children and that it deeply hurt him to see this conclusion in the report from Stichting Hunto. He insisted again that he never did such things to his children.
He also noted that his daughter passed away in September 2022.
Media Worker Allegedly Harassed Him
- stated that the man B., who works in the media, had repeatedly harassed him and even went to his workplace to inform his employer that G. was a pedophile and should be watched carefully. This led to G. losing his job.
According to G., wherever he sought employment, his ex-wife C. and her partner B. allegedly boycotted him so he would not be hired.
Prosecutor General Requests Further Investigation
The Prosecutor General stated that the case is very serious and that the key question is: who committed the acts against the children? The PG believes clarity is needed regarding the claim that G. left the house in February 2022.
The PG requested to hear testimony from the ex-wife C. and her sister, considering this point very important.
Defense lawyer Mr. Mohamed stated that G. requested testimony from a female neighbor, B., from the home of G.’s mother, where he is currently living. The lawyer also requested testimony from G.’s friend, R. Additionally, the defense believes further investigation is needed regarding the email account.
Court Postpones the Case
The Court temporarily paused proceedings to evaluate the situation. After deliberation, the Court decided there is indeed uncertainty about the exact time G. left the home.
The Court also decided to hear witnesses:
- Ex-wife C.
- Her sister
- The female neighbor of G.
The Court did not consider it necessary to hear testimony from the friend B.
The Court further ordered investigation into the email account to clarify the matter. The Court instructed the Prosecutor General to verify whether G. has been registered at his mother’s address since leaving the marital home.
The Court also wants to determine how frequently G. visited his ex-wife’s home to see the children and for how long.
The case has been postponed until May 22, 2026.