 |
| Image Credit: Michael S. Helfenbein |
By Amo Muzambalika LLB, LLM Candidate
May 05, 2025
Introduction
The
landmark judgment in George Peter Mwanza
and Melvin Beene v Attorney General (2019) represents a defining moment in
Zambia’s constitutional and human rights jurisprudence. By addressing the
plight of HIV-positive prisoners denied adequate nutrition and healthcare, the
Supreme Court not only affirmed the justiciability of socio-economic rights but
also demonstrated a progressive approach to interpreting fundamental rights
expansively. What happened in the case is that two HIV-positive Zambian
prisoners challenged inadequate prison conditions at Lusaka Central Prison,
including poor nutrition (rotten food), interrupted antiretroviral therapy, and
overcrowding (75 inmates in 15-person cells). The High Court acknowledged
violations but deemed them non-justiciable under the Directive Principles. The
parties appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 28 of the Constitution,
which provides that a party aggrieved by
the decision of the High court can appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision.
Theoretical Underpinnings of the Judgment
The
Supreme Court’s reasoning reflects an intricate interplay of jurisprudential
theories, each contributing to the robust protection of prisoners’ rights. At
its core, the judgment draws from natural law principles, which posit that
certain rights are inherent and inalienable, transcending mere legal
codification. By interpreting the right to life under Article 12 and the
prohibition against inhuman treatment under Article 15 expansively, the Court
anchored its decision in the intrinsic dignity of prisoners. This philosophical
grounding aligns with international trends, particularly the Indian Supreme
Court’s jurisprudence, where cases such as Francis
Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) established that
the right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity, including access
to adequate nutrition and healthcare. The Court’s reliance on dignity as a
foundational principle underscores its commitment to a human-centric
interpretation of the law.
Simultaneously,
the judgment embodies the tenets of transformative constitutionalism, viewing
the Constitution as a dynamic instrument capable of addressing evolving
societal challenges. By linking socio-economic rights such as the right to food
and health to civil and political rights, the Court dismantled the artificial
dichotomy that has long relegated socio-economic entitlements to the realm of
non-justiciable policy directives. This approach mirrors the jurisprudence of
South Africa’s Constitutional Court, which has consistently held that
socio-economic rights are enforceable when they intersect with the rights to
dignity and equality, as seen in cases like Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom (2000). The
Zambian Supreme Court’s reasoning thus signals a departure from rigid legal
formalism towards a more holistic understanding of rights.
Despite
its transformative leanings, the judgment also adheres to positivist principles
by grounding its orders in existing domestic legislation, particularly the
Prisons Act and accompanying regulations. The Court emphasised the State’s
statutory duty to provide adequate nutrition and medical care, reinforcing the
rule of law and governmental accountability. This dual approach combining moral
imperatives with strict legal positivism strengthened the judgment’s
legitimacy, ensuring that it remained firmly rooted in Zambia’s legal framework
while advancing progressive interpretations.
Moreover,
the Court demonstrated judicial pragmatism by acknowledging the limits of its
role in policy-making. While it affirmed the judiciary’s duty to intervene
where fundamental rights are violated, it deferred to the executive and
legislature for broader systemic reforms. This balanced stance reflects an
acute awareness of the separation of powers, ensuring that the judgment did not
overstep into the domain of resource allocation or penal policy formulation.
Instead, the Court focused on delineating the State’s obligations and providing
a framework for compliance, thereby striking a delicate balance between judicial
activism and restraint.
Contribution to Zambia’s
Jurisprudence
The
Mwanza and Beene judgment represents a significant leap forward in Zambia’s
legal evolution, particularly in its treatment of socio-economic rights. By
framing inadequate food and healthcare as violations of the right to life and
dignity, the Court effectively expanded the scope of justiciable rights,
challenging the traditional view that socio-economic entitlements are merely
aspirational. This precedent opens the door for future litigation on issues
such as housing, education, and healthcare, where claimants may now argue that
State failures constitute breaches of fundamental rights. The judgment thus
serves as a catalyst for a more rights-based approach to governance, where socio-economic
deprivation is recognised as a legal wrong rather than a mere policy shortcoming.
Equally
noteworthy is the judgment’s humanisation of prisoners’ rights, which
challenges the punitive ethos that has long characterised Zambia’s penal
system. The Court unequivocally affirmed that incarceration does not strip
individuals of their humanity or their entitlement to basic dignities. This
aligns with international standards, particularly the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), which
prohibit degrading conditions and mandate adequate healthcare for detainees. By
drawing on comparative jurisprudence, including rulings from the European Court
of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court, the judgment enriches Zambia’s
legal discourse and aligns it with global human rights norms.
The
Court’s remedial approach also merits attention. Rather than issuing sweeping
directives, it adopted a measured strategy, ordering the State to decongest
Lusaka Central Prison and improve inmates’ dietary provisions while requiring
periodic progress reports to the High Court. This structural interdict model,
borrowed from South African constitutional law, ensures ongoing judicial
oversight without encroaching on executive functions. It reflects a
sophisticated understanding of the judiciary’s role in enforcing rights while
respecting institutional boundaries.
Critique and Unresolved
Questions
Despite
its progressive stance, the judgment leaves several questions unanswered. One
notable limitation is its narrow remedial scope, which focuses exclusively on
Lusaka Central Prison without addressing systemic issues in other correctional
facilities. This raises concerns about unequal treatment of prisoners across
the country and the potential for fragmented enforcement. Additionally, the
Court sidestepped the thorny issue of resource constraints, offering little
guidance on how the State should balance its fiscal limitations with its
obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR). While the judgment rightly rejects resource scarcity as a
justification for inhuman treatment, it does not delineate the extent of the
State’s immediate duties versus its progressive realisation commitments.
Another
unresolved issue is the lack of robust enforcement mechanisms. Without clear
sanctions for non-compliance, the ruling risks remaining symbolic rather than
transformative. Comparative examples, such as India’s Right to Food litigation,
demonstrate the importance of sustained judicial monitoring to ensure
implementation. The Zambian Supreme Court could have strengthened its orders by
appointing an independent monitor or mandating specific timelines for
compliance.
Conclusion
The
Mwanza and Beene judgment is a watershed moment in Zambian jurisprudence,
blending natural law, transformative constitutionalism, and legal positivism to
advance prisoners’ rights. By affirming the justiciability of socio-economic
rights through civil and political frameworks, the Court has expanded the
horizons of constitutional litigation, offering a blueprint for future
rights-based challenges. However, the judgment’s long-term impact hinges on
sustained judicial oversight and political will to implement reforms. For
Zambia’s legal system, this case is not merely about prisoners it is about
redefining the boundaries of rights, dignity, and the rule of law in a manner
that resonates with both local realities and global human rights standards.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
