Malawi

The petitioner sought a divorce from her husband under common law rather than Islamic rite. After several years of marriage, (i) the petitioner discovered that the respondent had lied about being divorced prior to their marriage, (ii) the respondent stopped supporting her financially, and (iii) the respondent neglected their relationship. After she started a business to provide for herself, the respondent employed his former wife’s relatives to “spy and scorn her to leave the house.” The matter was brought to their religious leader, who ordered the couple to three months’ separation to see whether reconciliation was possible. During that period, the respondent lived with his former wife, admitted to other extra-marital relationships, continued to harass the petitioner for conjugal relations, and declared that he did not want her as his wife, which he believed should have legally relieved him of their marriage. The petitioner subsequently applied for divorce in the High Court. The respondent contested adjudicating the matter before the High Court, arguing (i) that the divorce should have been adjudicated by religious leaders rather than a secular court and (ii) that he believed that the marriage was already dissolved given his declaration to his religious leader that he no longer wanted to be married (although no witnesses testified to hearing the respondent pronounce the “talaq” against his wife). The High Court emphasized that courts do not have a monopoly on divorce; for example, couples can divorce by mutual agreement at custom before village civic authorities or other tribunals. However, even in such situations, if one party is wronged or does not consent to the divorce, that party can seek resolution in a secular court. The High Court concluded that the respondent’s alleged “divorce” was not valid, as the respondent had violated the tenets of his faith with his extramarital affairs, harassment of his estranged wife, and lies to lure her into the marriage. Emphasizing the equal status of husband and wife under the Constitution, the Court held that the respondent’s summary declaration of a dissolved marriage in this case, especially as it was unjustified, did not conform to the principles of justice, equality, and morality, and granted the petitioner the divorce under law.

The defendant was convicted rape, with the trial court finding that he followed the complainant to her house, suggested sexual intercourse, attacked her when she declined, and raped her. The defendant, a first-time offender, received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment. A judge reviewed the sentence and sent it to the High Court for consideration on the grounds that the sentence necessitated judicial remand due to manifest inadequacy. In concluding the lack of necessity of remand, the High Court reviewed the approach to sentencing for criminal offenses, which must regard the specific circumstances of the offense, the offender and the victim, and the public interest. The High Court discussed a few factors that must be taken into consideration in sentencing in rape cases, namely the victim’s age, the effect of the rape on the victim, and whether the perpetrator i) used violence above the minimum force to commit the rape, ii) used a weapon to intimidate or wound the victim, iii) repeatedly raped the victim, iv) premeditated and planned the rape, v) had previous convictions for sexual or other violent offences, and vi) subjected the victim to additional sexual indignities or perversions. The High Court affirmed precedent suggesting that three years is the minimum sentence for an adult convicted of rape without aggravating or mitigating factors. Specifically, the Court cited English precedent, which suggested five years as the threshold sentence, before citing the Malawi High Court suggesting that the threshold should be three years because of prison conditions in Malawi. In applying precedential sentencing standards to the specific circumstances of the case, the High Court determined that the lower court’s sentence did not qualify as manifestly inadequate, and therefore did not warrant intervention.

Three minor girls, victims of human trafficking who the defendant lured in with promises of working in a restaurant, but instead sent to work at a bar, appealed their case. When the work conditions turned out to be exploitative, the appellants reported the defendant to the police. The case was appealed to the High Court on the basis that: (i) the case file did not go through the standard process whereby a case is registered in the Criminal Registry then distributed to a Magistrate by a Chief Resident Magistrate, and (ii) the magistrate did not follow proper procedure for the child witnesses’ testimony. In concluding that a proper lower court be assigned to re-hear the matter, the High Court underscored the importance of following legal procedure designed to protect the rights of vulnerable child witnesses. The High Court pointed out a number of procedural protocols, such as ensuring that the child witnesses did not come into direct contact with the accused, making provision for the witness to be accompanied by a supportive figure in court, and considering the possibility of a pre-recorded interview of a child witness as evidence. The court noted that a court competent in handling child witnesses must re-hear the matter, as causing witnesses to endure repeat trials as a result of the failure to follow proper judicial procedure is akin to repeat victimization of such witnesses.

The appellant challenged his concurrent sentences for six violations of the Trafficking in Persons Act as manifestly excessive. The sentences ranged from 10-14 years of imprisonment including hard labor. The maximum penalty for a standard count of trafficking under article 14 of the Act is 14 years, the maximum penalty for trafficking children under 18 years is 21 years (article 15), and article 16 lists aggravating circumstances that increase the penalty for human trafficking to life imprisonment. The appellate court found that the lower court had inaccurately noted which charges corresponded with each victim, which resulted in confusing and improper sentencing decisions. First, the trial court erroneously sentenced the appellant for article 14 trafficking for Counts 1, 2, 5, and 6, but the victims were children and thus these charges should have been sentenced with reference to article 15’s 21 year maximum. In another error regarding Counts 3 and 4, the trial court found the appellant guilty of trafficking an adult of unsound mind in violation of article 16(1)(c), but the conviction should have been for article 14 trafficking of an adult because the adult victim was of sound mind. Ultimately the appellate court affirmed four of the six sentences related to trafficking children because the aggravating factors meant that those maximum penalties for were substantially longer than 14 years, rendering these sentences judicious. For the erroneous article 16 convictions, the appellate court substituted two article 14 convictions and imposed a substitute sentence of 10 years for each count to run concurrently. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the sentences were manifestly excessive because they were well below the maximum available sentences.

The two accused persons were charged and convicted of having carnal knowledge against the order of nature –contrary to Section 153(a) of the Penal Code, which is understood to prohibit same-sex sexual relations. In the alternative, the two accused persons were charged with indecent practices between men contrary to Section 156 of the Penal Code. Both of the accused persons pleaded not guilty but were convicted of both charges and sentenced to the maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment including hard labor. The two accused persons had conducted a traditional engagement ceremony, or chinkhoswe. They held themselves out to be husband and wife, and the second accused person identified as a woman but the court consistently referred to her as a man. The court found that both accused committed the crimes charged. In sentencing the two accused persons to the maximum punishment available, the court cited their perceived lack of remorse and their attempt to “seek heroism […] in public, and […] corrupting the mind of a whole nation with a chinkhoswe ceremony.” The court explicitly described the sentences of 14 years imprisonment with hard labor as deterrents so that the public could be “protected from others who may be tempted to emulate their [horrendous] example.” In closing, the court stated, “let posterity judge this judgment.” According to multiple news sources (e.g., the BBC), the President of Malawi pardoned both accused persons and they were subsequently released from prison with a warning not to resume their relationship.

The 21-year-old appellant pleaded guilty to the defilement of a 15-year-old girl with whom he had an ongoing sexual relationship and who was, by the time of the trial, pregnant as a result. The trial court sentenced the appellant to six years imprisonment with hard labor. He unsuccessfully appealed to reduce the sentence, claiming the following mitigating factors: (i) his willingness to financially support the girl and her baby; (ii) his age; and (iii) his status as a first-time offender. The court rejected this appeal on the grounds that appellate courts may only interfere with sentences that are either “manifestly excessive (or inadequate) or otherwise erroneous in principle,” citing cases in which the state had successfully enhanced initial sentences from six to eight years as evidence that this sentence was not unusually excessive or otherwise erroneous.

The appellant, a mother who shared two young children with the respondent, appealed a judgment awarding custody of the couple’s children to the respondent after their divorce. At the time of the original custody order, the children were residing with the appellant in Malawi, but the court granted custody to the respondent to raise them in England. The original order was predicated on the respondent’s assertion that while he was not presently best suited to support his children, his parents, the children’s grandparents, were available to raise the children until such time in the short-term future that respondent could acquire his own home. The lower court that issued the order appeared to favor this arrangement over the children remaining with their mother, at least in part due to her living with a new man who was unrelated to the children and with whom she had no immediate prospect for marriage. Ultimately, in the time between argument at the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Court’s decision, the parties came to a custody agreement and filed a Consent Order with the court, which obviated the issue. The Supreme Court of Appeal, however, still filed this opinion, stating that the lower court had erred and should have awarded custody to the appellant based on consistency in the lives of the children. The Supreme Court of Appeal emphasized that the lower court’s reliance on the appellant’s relationship with another man was inappropriate without evidence of harm to the children.

The applicant, Salome Jumbo, claimed she was dismissed as a result of her pregnancy. In 1999, the applicant started as a temporary nurse aid at a clinic and continued in that position until 2001. In 2001, the manager of the clinic assured the applicant that her job had become permanent. On April 4, 2001, the manager discovered that the applicant was pregnant. He immediately warned the applicant that he would not allow her to keep her job if she remained pregnant, as they wanted a permanent nurse aid. The manager also enquired into the applicant’s private affairs and made inappropriate sexual remarks. On June 1, 2001, the manager terminated the applicant’s employment explicitly informing her that her termination was due to her pregnancy. The applicant asked for a reference letter, but the manager refused saying that she was a temporary employee and did not deserve one. The Industrial Relations Court of Malawi (the “Court”) ruled that the termination was contrary to the spirit of the Employment Act and ordered that the clinic immediately re-instate the applicant. The Court found that the respondent specifically violated the applicant’s rights under §31(1) of the Employment Act, which requires employers to provide a reference if the employee requests one on termination of an employment contract. In addition, the respondent violated § 49 (1) of the Employment Act, which dictates that “terminating a woman’s employment because of pregnancy amount[s] to an offence [that is] punishable with a fine of K20,000 and imprisonment of five years” (p. 3). The Court also found that the manager’s inquiries into the applicant’s private affairs with her husband amounted to sexual harassment. This case is notable in Malawi because it set the precedent that inquiring into a married woman’s private affairs with her husband is an unfair labor practice.

The applicant and her husband were both employed by the respondent as an accounts clerk and teacher, respectively. After the applicant’s husband resigned to join the Public Service, the respondent terminated the applicant’s employment contract noting that her employment was tied to her husband’s. The applicant challenged the dismissal alleging that it was invalid. The Industrial Relations Court of Malawi (the “Court”) found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of her marital status. The Court reasoned that “the effect of the reason used by the respondent was to prevent the applicant from entering and sustaining an employment contract and pursuing a livelihood in her own right because she was married” (p. 2). In reaching its decision, the Court consulted § 5 of Malawi’s Employment Act and §§ 20, 24(1)(i), 24(2)(b) and 31 of Malawi’s Constitution. The Court held that the applicant’s termination was invalid because the reason for her termination “denied her right to engage in economic activity through employment” and “her right to fair labor practices” (p. 2). Therefore, the applicant’s termination was also prohibited under section 57(3)(a) of Malawi’s Employment Act. The Court awarded the applicant compensation for the unfair dismissal and discrimination.

The applicant, was a security guard. She was employed on a fixed term renewable contract, renewable upon satisfactory performance. On December 26, 2005, near the end of her employment term, one of the applicant's colleagues attacked her and attempted to rape her, only stopping after being apprehended when she shouted for help. The applicant reported the incident to her employer’s management, which convened a hearing. During the hearing, the company’s human resources representative accused the applicant of misconduct and embarrassing the company by discussing the attempted rape, which the company considered to be an "inside thing." On December 31, 2005, the company fired the applicant, citing the expiring fixed term contract for support. The applicant brought her case to the Industrial Relations Court of Malawi (the “Court”). Calling it "a case of the worst forms of unfair labour practices," the Court found that (i) the applicant had reason to believe that the company would renew her contract and (ii) that their refusal to do so was based on the attempted rape incident. According to the Court, the company’s actions breached an implied term of the plaintiff’s employment contract relating to mutual trust and confidence as well as the company’s obligation under the contract to protect female employees from sexual harassment and abuse. Until recent amendments to the Employment Act, the labor laws of Malawi did not address sexual harassment, other than reading § 5 of the Employment and Labor Relations Act with § 20 of Malawi’s Constitution, which prohibit unfair discrimination in all forms. Despite the lack of a legal provision specifically addressing sexual harassment, the Court found that sexual harassment creates a hostile work environment, leads to unfair labor practices, and thus constitutes discrimination based on sex. Therefore, the Court found the plaintiff's dismissal invalid and held that the company violated her “right to fair labor practices, the right to work, her right to safe working environment and personal dignity.” The Court considered remedies, finding that compensation in the form of 57 months' salary was appropriate, noting that the first-choice remedy in unfair dismissal cases, reinstatement, was not acceptable in this case because of the egregious conduct of the company's human resources representative.

The appellant was convicted of defiling a 12-year-old girl and appealed the conviction on the grounds that the intercourse was consensual and that he believed the complainant was older than 12 years at the time. The Court dismissed the appeal and noted that the evidence was sufficient to prove a lack of consent but also that, at 12 years old, the complainant was too young to give consent. The Court also noted aggravating factors, including that the appellant had intercourse with the complainant on multiple occasions and the appellant had threatened the complainant against telling her parents.

The appellant was charged with defilement for having unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 13 years of age. The trial court convicted him of indecent assault because there was no penetration. He appealed his conviction for indecent assault because it was not included in the original charge. He also argued that his sentence was excessive. The Court dismissed the appeal of the conviction on the grounds that where the evidence is sufficient to sustain the lesser charge of indecent assault but may not be sufficient for defilement, the accused may be convicted of the lesser crime even when it was not included in the original charge. However, the Court upheld the appeal of the sentence and lowered it, despite of the fact that women and girls need to be protected, taking into account the mitigating factor of the appellant's youth.

The petitioner-wife sought dissolution of her marriage on the grounds of abuse by the respondent-husband, who repeatedly physically abused her and threatened her with physical force when she tried to stop him from drinking. She also asked for maintenance for the couple's daughter. The Court granted the dissolution of marriage and noted that the types of mistreatment the petitioner suffered at the hands of her husband constituted gender-based violence as defined by the Declaration of the Elimination of Violence Against Women because it was based on the unequal power relations between the husband and wife and caused the petitioner serious psychological suffering.

In recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of each human, Article 12 requires that the State and all persons recognize and protect human rights and afford the fullest protection to the rights and views of all individuals, groups, and minorities. All persons have equal status before the law. Limitations of rights are only justifiable insofar as they ensure peaceful human interaction in the context of an open and democratic society. Article 13 requires the State to actively promote the welfare and development of the people by affirmatively adopting legislation and policies to achieve gender equality. This requires: (i) women’s full participation in all spheres of society with opportunities equal to men; (ii) the implementation of nondiscrimination principles and other measures; and (iii) the implementation of policies addressing domestic violence, personal security, maternity benefits, economic exploitation, and rights to property, among other relevant social issues. Article 22 mandates that all members of a family shall enjoy equal respect and shall be protected under law against all forms of neglect, cruelty or exploitation. No person shall be forced to enter into any marriage, and no person over the age of 18 can be prevented from entering into marriage. All provisions of this section apply to civil, customary, and other forms of marriage. Article 24 specifically guarantees that women are entitled to full and equal protection of law, and have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or marital status. This includes the following rights: (i) equal rights under civil law, including equal capacity in the realms of contracts, property, custody, decision-making regarding children, and acquisition and retaining of citizenship and nationality; and (ii) upon the dissolution of marriage, entitlement to fair disposition of jointly held property and to fair maintenance. Further, any laws that discriminate against women are invalid and legislation must affirmatively be passed to eliminate customs and practices that discriminate against women. This affirmative requirement particularly applies to practices of: sexual abuse, harassment, or violence; discrimination in work, business, or public affairs; and deprivation of property (inherited or otherwise). Article 30 provides that, while all persons have a right to the enjoyment of economic, social, cultural and political development, women in particular shall be given special consideration in regards to this right. The State must take all necessary measures for the realization of this right, including reforms aimed to eradicate social injustice and inequality. Other gender-related provisions include: the prohibition of torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment (Article 19); Article 20’s ban on all forms of discrimination; the right to education for all people (Article 25); Article 27’s prohibition of slavery, servitude, and forced labor; and Article 31’s requirement that all persons are entitled to fair wages and equal remuneration for equal value work without discrimination of any kind, especially on the basis of gender.