Opinion | By a Child-Protection Practitioner*

There is something profoundly disturbing about allegations that a person entrusted with protecting the public may have used that position to gain access to and allegedly groom a child.

The allegations involving suspended Deputy National Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya must be determined by the courts. He is entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence, and allegations must not be confused with established fact.

But as a child-protection practitioner, I believe we must ask the question that extends far beyond one individual or one criminal case:

What happens to a child when the person who allegedly has power over them is also someone the child has been taught to trust?

That is where safeguarding begins.

Power changes the meaning of trust

A child does not experience power in the same way an adult does.

A senior police officer wears more than a uniform. The office carries authority. It represents the state, the law and, in the eyes of many children, protection.

That is precisely why allegations involving a child and someone occupying a position of authority demand rigorous safeguarding.

If an adult in a position of power develops an inappropriate relationship with a child, the question cannot simply be whether the child appeared willing to communicate, accepted gifts, responded to messages or spent time with that adult.

Children are not responsible for managing adult boundaries. Adults are.

A child may believe they are in a relationship of trust. They may feel special. They may believe the adult is protecting them. They may even defend the person who is harming them.

That is not evidence that the child was responsible.

It is one of the reasons grooming is so dangerous.

Grooming does not arrive wearing a warning label

We need to stop teaching parents to look only for the stereotypical stranger.

Grooming can begin with attention.

A compliment.

A gift.

A lift home.

A promise.

A job or opportunity.

A sympathetic ear.

An adult who appears to understand a child’s problems better than anyone else.

Then the boundaries begin to move.

The conversations become private.

The gifts become more frequent.

The adult wants exclusive access.

The child is encouraged to keep secrets.

The relationship becomes “special”.

The child becomes emotionally dependent.

And eventually behaviour that should never have been normalised can be presented to the child as affection, loyalty or love.

That is the trap.

The abuse may not initially feel like abuse to the child.

Parents need to look beyond the obvious

Parents should pay attention when a child suddenly becomes intensely secretive about a particular adult or about their phone.

Be alert to unexplained gifts, money, airtime, transport or outings.

Be concerned when an adult insists on communicating privately with a child rather than through the parent.

Pay attention when a child is told:

“Don’t tell your mother.”

“This is our secret.”

“Your parents won’t understand.”

“You are more mature than other children.”

Or:

“If you really care about me, you won’t tell anyone.”

These are not expressions of healthy adult-child boundaries.

They are warning signs.

And in an age where a smartphone can provide an adult with 24-hour access to a child’s private world, parents cannot afford to believe that abuse only happens behind closed doors.

The bedroom door may be closed, but the phone is open.

The most dangerous words may be: “Don’t tell anyone”

Parents should create homes where disclosure is safer than secrecy.

If a child tells you that an adult has made them uncomfortable, do not immediately demand:

“Why did you talk to him?”

“Why did you accept the gift?”

“Why didn’t you tell me?”

“Why did you send the photograph?”

Those questions can make a child feel that they are the one in trouble.

Instead say:

“I am glad you told me.”

“You are not to blame.”

“You did the right thing by telling me.”

Then get professional assistance.

Do not confront the alleged perpetrator in anger. Do not conduct your own interrogation of the child. Do not repeatedly make the child recount the experience to family members, friends and institutions.

And do not delete digital evidence.

Messages, usernames, photographs, recordings and other digital information may be important to an investigation. But parents should also be extremely careful not to forward or circulate sexual material involving a child.

The child must not become evidence that is passed from phone to phone.

We must protect children from the second trauma

There is an uncomfortable truth about child protection in South Africa:

Sometimes the system intended to protect a child can become another source of trauma.

A child may have to tell their story repeatedly.

They may be questioned by different adults.

Their privacy may be compromised.

Their story may find its way onto social media.

People may speculate about what happened.

Adults may publicly debate whether the child is “telling the truth”.

This is unacceptable.

Children are not public property.

They do not owe the public their identity, photographs, school, location or intimate history simply because allegations have become news.

This becomes particularly important when the allegations involve a senior official or someone with institutional influence.

There must be safeguards against intimidation, retaliation, interference and unnecessary exposure.

The investigation must be independent and credible.

The child must have access to appropriate support.

And the child’s best interests must remain central.

Due process and child protection are not enemies

There is sometimes a false choice presented in cases like these.

Either we respect the rights of the accused, or we protect the child.

That is nonsense.

We must do both.

The accused is entitled to due process.

The child is entitled to protection.

The accused is entitled to a fair hearing.

The child is entitled to safety.

The court must determine guilt.

Professionals must ensure that safeguarding does not wait for a conviction.

These principles can—and must—co-exist.

A position of authority cannot become a position above accountability

The wider lesson extends beyond this particular case.

Every organisation that works with children—and every institution entrusted with protecting them—needs robust safeguarding systems.

Who has access to children?

Who communicates with them privately?

Who transports them?

Who can contact them electronically?

What happens when a child complains about someone senior?

Can a child safely report an official who has institutional power?

Who investigates when the allegation involves someone within the system?

And critically:

Who protects the child while that investigation takes place?

These are not bureaucratic questions.

They can be the difference between a child being protected and a child being silenced.

We cannot tell children to trust adults and then fail to police the adults

As a society, we constantly tell children:

“Listen to adults.”

“Respect authority.”

“Ask the police for help.”

“Trust your teachers.”

“Tell someone if you are in danger.”

But children cannot be expected to navigate dangerous adult relationships on their own.

The burden must be placed where it belongs:

on adults, institutions and society to create safe boundaries around children.

Grooming thrives where secrecy is normalised, where power goes unquestioned and where children fear that speaking out will make their lives worse.

Our job is to break that triangle.

We need parents who are present.

Schools that understand safeguarding.

Police services with credible internal accountability.

Child-protection systems that respond quickly.

Courts that protect children from secondary trauma.

And communities that stop blaming children for the behaviour of adults.

The allegations before the courts will follow their legal course.

But the child-protection lesson should not wait for a verdict.

A badge cannot make a boundary less important. A rank cannot make a child less vulnerable. A reputation cannot make an allegation disappear. And power must never become a shield against scrutiny.

Children should never have to calculate whether it is safe to tell the truth.

They should know that when they speak, the adults around them will listen.

They will believe them enough to act.

They will protect them.

And they will not leave them alone to carry the consequences.

Because ultimately, child protection is not about protecting institutions from uncomfortable allegations.

It is about protecting children from adults who may misuse the trust placed in them.

And when that trust is alleged to have been abused, our first question should always be:

Who is protecting the child?

 

*Dr Shaheda Omar is the Director of Teddy Bear Clinic for abused children based in Parktown, Johannesburg. www.teddybearfoundation.org.za

(Image Credit: Getty Images)