Politicization and Problematization of Consensual Sexuality: The Diallo Strauss-Kahn Case

Abstract

The Nafissatou Diallo–Dominique Strauss-Kahn case has opened a new vista to the concepts of freedom and justice and exposed the limitation and bias of justice administration within the context of the high and mighty versus the lowly and weak. The accusation of jaundiced credibility which formed the basis for the New York County District Attorney to jettison the case undermined two core tenets of natural justice, audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no-one should be a judge in their own cause) and smacked of legal self-conceitedness. Strauss-Kahn’s strings of sexual escapades, which traverse his native France, New York and Washington, do not paint him in saintly halo that he should be shielded from prosecution for sexual assault and rape. This paper critically examines the seeming bases upon which the case was dropped and argues that rather than serving justice, the New York County District Attorney served the parochial, anti-justice interest of transnational forces, which patently denied Diallo justice and unwittingly opened the door for the ascendancy of the culture of impunity against vulnerable women.