By Lina Jere, Innocent Siachitoba, Dorica Pelemba and Chiluba K. Moyo
Every society defines permissible conduct and, through an established criminal justice system, attaches punishment to impermissible conduct. In Zambia, this has principally been done through the Penal Code Act and the Criminal Procedure Code Act which were enacted in 1931 and 1933 respectively. From the time they were enacted, the two pieces of legislation have not been comprehensively reviewed. On 15th February, 2022, the Zambia Law Development Commission (ZLDC) and the Technical Committee on the review of the Penal Code Act, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia and the Criminal Procedure Code Act, Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia handed over the Project Report and the two Draft Bills recommending the repeal and replacement of the Penal Code Act and the Criminal Procedure Code Act. The handover ceremony was held at Taj Pamodzi Hotel in Lusaka.
Speaking during the handover ceremony, Honourable Mr. Justice Chalwe Mchenga, the Technical Committee Chairperson highlighted some of the areas where recommendations, informed by specific findings, have been made. “I am of a strong belief that once the current two statutes are repealed and replaced, the dispensation of justice for persons within the criminal justice web shall greatly improve”, he said.
And speaking on behalf of German Agency for International Corporation (GIZ), Her Excellency the German Ambassador accredited to Zambia, Ms. Anne Wagner Mitchell stated that the project report and draft Bills address the necessary protection rights of children and other vulnerable groups.
Speaking after receiving the project report and draft Bills, Minister of Justice, Hon. Mulambo Haimbe stated that the completion and subsequent submission of the proposed Bills and Project Report on the review of the Penal Code Act and the Criminal Procedure Code Act is a demonstration of government’s determination to ensure that Zambia has a functioning criminal justice system. He further stated that the review of the two pieces of legislation and allied legislation was of great necessity to government and the country at large.
Meanwhile, the ZLDC Director Mrs. Hope N. Chanda, speaking earlier, expressed the Commission’s commitment to complete law review projects on schedule and to drive Zambia’s law reform agenda. “The process to review the Penal Code Act and the Criminal Procedure Code Act commenced in 2011. However, the process inordinately delayed due to inadequate financial resources. Today we have been able to complete the project with the support of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Germany Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) to whom we are thankful”, she said.
She underscored the Commission’s willingness to receive instructions and support from the Ministry of Justice and Government to reform and develop other laws in Zambia.
Below is the summary of the report.
Below is the summary of the report.
———————————————-
Summary of the Review of the Penal Code Act and Criminal Procedure Code Act
Introduction
The Zambia Law Development Commission (ZLDC) is a statutory body that was established in 1996, by the Zambia Law Development Commission Act, Chapter 32 of the Laws of Zambia. The ZLDC falls under the portfolio of the Ministry of Justice.
The primary mandate of the ZLDC is law reform. The ZLDC undertakes research and makes recommendations on among other things:
- socio-political values of the Zambian people that should be incorporated into legislation;
- Anomalies that should be eliminated from the statute book;
- new and more effective methods of administration of the law and the dispensation of justice that should be adopted and legislated; and
- removal of archaic pieces of legislation from the statute book.
In line with its enabling legislation, The ZLDC can receive instructions to carry out a law reform or development from the Ministry of Justice, other line Government Ministries and Departments, statutory bodies, civil society organisations, or private individuals.
Background
In 2011, the Minister of Justice instructed the ZLDC to undertake a project to review the Penal Code Act, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia and the Criminal Procedure Code Act, Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia. The instruction was prompted by calls from stakeholders, in the criminal justice system, who observed that-
- the two Acts have never been comprehensively reviewed since they were enacted in 1931 and 1933 respectively, and as a result, they have archaic provisions that do not reflect contemporary times;
- over the years, specialised Acts that contain criminal offences and penalties have been enacted, and this has resulted in inconsistent penalties for similar criminal conduct; and
- the two Acts were enacted by the colonial government and reflects a colonial legacy, and it was time for the country to replace these laws with home grown legislation.
The first activity that was carried out by the ZLDC in the law review process was to determine the project objectives.
The main objective of the project was to review the Penal Code Act and the Criminal Procedure Code Act to develop comprehensive criminal law legislation.
The specific objectives were to:
- address the question of whether or not to consolidate all offences in the Penal Code Act and all criminal procedure in the Criminal Procedure Code Act;
- identify and remove archaic provisions in the law;
- identify lacunae in the law in order to introduce suitable provisions;
- identify and recommend the adoption of international and regional best practice; and
- recommend the domestication of international and regional instruments.
Methodology
In order to achieve the project objectives, the Commission used the qualitative method of data collection and analysis. This consisted of a desk study to review both primary and secondary data sources, comparative study visits; stakeholder consultative and stakeholder validation meetings) and Technical Committee meetings.
Desk Study
Under the desk study, the Commission reviewed primary and secondary data sources at national and international level. At national level, the Commission reviewed the Constitution and Acts of Parliament, judicial precedents and policies. At international and regional level, the Commission reviewed international instruments such Declarations, Conventions, Treaties, and Protocols.
Further, the Commission reviewed legislation from other jurisdictions identified as having progressive criminal justice systems.
Appointment of Technical Committee
At the request of the Commission, in 2016, Cabinet appointed a committee of experts in criminal law to provide oversight to the law review process and to make recommendations. The Technical Committee was chaired by Honourable Mr. Justice Chalwe Mchenga representing the Judiciary. Other representatives included Honourable Mr. Justice Kelvin Muzenga who, before his appointment as Judge represented the Legal Aid Board; Mr. Chipalo Bako, representing the National Prosecutions Authority; Ms. Maimbo S. Ziela, a Legal Practitioner in private practice; Mr. Tembo Simon representing the Zambia Police Service; Mr. Raphael Mungole, retired Commissioner of the Drug Enforcement Commission; and Mrs. Mwenya Bwalya, representing the Ministry of Justice. At every milestone in the law review process, the ZLDC presented its research findings to the Technical Committee, and the Committee would make submissions on the practical applicability of the findings and the recommendations made. The Committee further provided guidance for legislative development based on their experience working in the criminal justice system.
Public engagement
The Zambia Law Development Commission Act requires that a law review process include stakeholder consultations in order to ensure that legislation is reflective of the socio-political values of the Zambian people. These meetings are designed as a technical exercise to deliberate on problematic areas of the law, and to propose solutions.
In this regard, the ZLDC conducted a stakeholder mapping exercise to identify key actors in the criminal justice system. The Commission then held physical stakeholder consultative meetings in Lusaka, Central and Southern provinces in 2014 and a national consultative and validation meeting on a virtual platform in 2021. The stakeholders that participated in the meetings included representatives from regional organisations, government ministries and departments, the Judiciary, the Law Association of Zambia, civil society organisations, and academia.
Comparative Study Visits
During the stakeholder consultative process, stakeholders identified Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, Uganda, South Africa and Zimbabwe as countries from which Zambia could adopt best practice. Comparative study visits to these countries were subsequently undertaken in 2015, and researchers conducted interviews with the relevant officials at the key institutions. However, the desk review on comparative study was extended to Kenya, Lesotho and Rwanda, which were selected as being African Countries, there is a presumption that they have a similar socio-economic environment, and because they have been cited for having best practice in relation to specific aspects of criminal law.
Drafting Team
The Commission further constituted a drafting team consisting of researchers from ZLDC, two representatives of the Ministry of Justice Legislative Drafting Department, a representative from the National Legal Aid Clinic for Women, a representative from the University of Zambia and a representative from the Legal Aid Board to draft proposed amendments to the Penal Code Act and the Criminal Procedure Code Act. The draft Penal Code Bill and Criminal Procedure Code Bill were subjected to stakeholder consultation and validation meetings and were reviewed by the Technical Committee.
Limitations
The process to review the Penal Code Act and the Criminal Procedure Code stalled and inordinately delayed due to inadequate financial resources at the Commission’s disposal. Due to limited finances, the stakeholder consultations were carried out in 3 provinces, instead of all 10 provinces. The limited physical consultations on the process was mitigated by the presence of institutions at national level. Therefore, despite the limitation here acknowledged, the ZLDC engaged with institutional heads and received information that was representative of the experiences of their respective institutions and interests.
In addition, the ZLDC, using virtual platforms, consulted with various stakeholders and solicited for their input. The virtual stakeholder engagements assisted the ZLDC to prevent the spread of Covid-19 or to mitigate its effects.
To attain procedural legitimacy and to enhance participation in the law development process, as required under the Zambia Law Development Commission Act, the ZLDC issued a public call for the citizenry and the public to make written submissions on matters of concern.
As earlier acknowledged, the law review process was protracted, from 2011 to 2022, as a result of the ZLDC’s limited financial capacity. However, cooperating partners such as the United Nations Development Program and the German Agency for International Cooperation came on board and played a key role in providing the financial support necessary to complete the project.
ZLDC General Finding
The Commission generally found that the PC and the CPC contained provisions that did not reflect contemporary developments which other countries have provided for in their criminal law, such as the use of technology in criminal proceedings; had provisions that were suited to the colonial government, some of which were prejudicial to native Africans; did not adequately comply with international instruments that Zambia is party to; and had lacunae, which require the introduction of suitable provisions.
ZLDC Specific Findings
Based on the research that was undertaken, the Commission made the following specific findings:
In the PC-
- Conflicting Penalties
Besides the Penal Code, there are other Acts focused on particular areas of the law that codify criminal offences and provide for their penalties. This has resulted in conflicting penalties for similar criminal conduct. For instance, a law enforcement officer has the discretion to charge a person for the offence of human trafficking contrary to the Anti-Human Trafficking Act, which attracts a minimum mandatory sentence of 20 years imprisonment, or the offence of buying and selling a slave, contrary to the Penal Code which attracts a penalty of a maximum of 7 years imprisonment. This result in unfairness and uncertainty in the treatment of accused persons, and has the potential to perpetuate corruption.
- Colonial Provisions
The Penal Code, having been enacted in 1931, has provisions that are reminiscent of the colonial era. For instance, Section 2 of the Act provides that it will be interpreted in accordance with the laws of England; and Section 71 makes it an offence to defame foreign princes. Section 71 is an offence that was appropriate for the English Monarch at that time, and it may be noted that the offence has since been repealed.
- Insult and Defamation Laws
Insult laws in the Penal Code include section 68 of the which prohibits insulting the national anthem; section 69 which prohibits defamation of the President; section 71 which prohibits defamation of foreign princes; and chapter XVIII which provides for the offences of criminal defamation and libel.
Under the desk review, it was found that whilst defamation and insult are objectionable conduct, these provisions compromise freedom of expression and are inconsistent with international law. Stakeholders were generally of the view that insult and defamation laws should be repealed as they are usually used for political expedience. It was further found that countries such as Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and Lesotho have made strides to repeal these laws, particularly, with regards to criminal defamation.
- Derogatory Phrases
The Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code use words and phrases that are derogatory and are contrary to international human rights law. These for instance include ‘idiot’, and ‘imbecile’. In the United Kingdom, instead of “idiot and imbecile” more acceptable terminology of “mental disorder impeding choice” is used. Further, the Mental Health Act was enacted in 2019 and provides alternative language to that used in the Penal Code.
- Mandatory Minimum Sentences
The Penal Code provides for mandatory minimum sentences, in, inter alia, section 138 prohibiting defilement, section 201 providing a punishment for the offence of murder, section 275 prohibiting stock theft, section 281A prohibiting theft of a motor vehicle and section 294 prohibiting aggravated robbery. Stakeholders submitted that this prevents the court from being able to determine an appropriate sentence based on the facts of a case, and exacerbates overcrowding in prisons and correctional facilities. These sentences are also inconsistent with international law which states that mandatory minimum sentences amount to arbitrary detention. It was found that in countries such as South Africa, New Zealand and Australia (Queensland), the Court has discretion to pass a sentence that is lower than the mandatory minimum, when it is in the interest of justice while other countries have developed Sentencing Guidelines to address concerns that arise with the removal of sentencing Guidelines.
- Non-bailable Offences
Section 123(1) of the CPC provides that a person charged with murder, treason, misprision of treason or treason felony, aggravated robbery and theft of motor vehicle (unless accused is a first offender), shall not be granted bail. However, the Human Rights Committee, in General Comment number 35 stipulates that pre-trial detention should not be mandatory for all defendants charged with a particular crime, without regard to individual circumstances. Stakeholder views were mixed, with some submitting that this is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence, and they exacerbate overcrowding in prisons and correctional facilities; and others submitting that it deters potential offenders.
In the United Kingdom and in South Africa, all accused persons have the right to bail except in very serious offences, where the accused person must show that special circumstances exist that justify admission to bail.
- Child Marriage
In terms of the minimum age for marriage, the Marriage Act provides that permission is to be sought from parents or guardian where a person under the age of 21 years is to marry; and under customary law, a person may marry upon puberty. However, the Education Act prohibits marrying and marrying off of a child that is in school.
Another legal provision that is relevant is offence of defilement in the PC, as consummation is an element of marriage. However, according to The Peopme v Chinjamba, the effect of the word ‘unlawful’ in the definition of defilement in the PC, is that sex with a person below the age of 16 years does not amount to defilement where that person is your spouse.
Stakeholder views were mixed, with some stakeholders stating that it was necessary to criminalise child marriage in order to protect the well-being of children, whilst others stated that child marriage is a socio-economic issue, and it should be dealt with in that manner.
Countries such as Nigeria and Malawi set the minimum age of marriage at 18 years, whilst Kenya provides for the prohibition of early child marriages in its legislation.
- Marital Rape
There is no provision in the PC that explicitly prohibits marital rape, and rape in the context of marriage has never been successfully prosecuted in Zambia. During stakeholder consultations, representatives from law enforcement agencies submitted that marital rape was not an offence. The majority of stakeholders submitted that criminalising marital rape would compromise the sanctity of marriage and victims may be given relief through divorce.
This position is challenged by the Anti- Gender based violence Act, which recognises marital rape as a form of sexual abuse. Whilst this does not make marital rape an offence, a victim of marital rape could claim relief under the Act, which includes protection orders, and access to a shelter.
Marital rape is an offence in many countries, as it is prosecuted as rape. Some African countries such as South Africa, Lesotho and Rwanda have gone further to explicitly state that rape in the context of marriage is an offence.
- Petty Offences
Petty offences in the PC include sections 178 (Idle and Disorderly Persons), 179 (Use of Insulting Language) and 181 (Rogues and Vagabonds). The Principles on the Decriminalisation of Petty Offences in Africa state that these provisions, inter alia, criminalise economic status, previous conviction and exacerbate prison overcrowding. The majority view of stakeholders was that these offences be repealed.
- Liability for Offences Committed By Foreigners Outside Zambia
Stakeholders submitted that section 6 on liability for offences committed outside the jurisdiction, or partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction is inadequate. It does not provide the court with jurisdiction to try a foreigner who commits an offence against a Zambian citizen outside Zambia, where that foreigner is in Zambia, which was in issue, in the case of Ngati and Others v. The People.
- Minimum age of Criminal Responsibility
The irrebuttable minimum age of criminal responsibility in the PC is 8 years. In providing guidance on the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that the minimum age of criminal responsibility be no lower than 14 years. This is based on documented evidence in the fields of child development and neuroscience. Countries such as Rwanda and Congo have a minimum age of criminal responsibility of 14 years.
- Bigamy
Stakeholders submitted that there was need to repeal the offence of bigamy, as it is a colonial legacy. Zambian customary law allows a man to marry more than one wife, and therefore, this should extend to statutory law. It was found that most African countries have laws similar to Zambia, in that marrying more than one wife is permissible under custom, but not under statute.
In the CPC-
- Video-Link Conferencing
There are no provisions in the Act that would permit the court to authorise oral evidence to be adduced by way of video-link conference. Such a provision would be necessary where appearance in person is impracticable due to factors including Covid 19 or other ailments, and undue expenses. This is a novelty even to the South African legal system, where it is permissible if, inter alia, it is shown that the other party will not be prejudiced.
- Archaic provisions
Section 11 of the Act provides that the Chief Justice may direct that an offence that is triable by the High Court may be tried by the Subordinate Court. This provision was racially prejudiced as it was used where the offence was committed by an indigenous African.
- Security for Keeping the Peace
Stakeholders submitted that sections 40 to 53 of the CPC relating to security for keeping the peace should be repealed as they provide the court with discretion to require a person who has not committed an offence to provide security for good behaviour upon a suspicion that they may commit an offence. Under the comparative study, it was found that this offence has been a common feature of laws of former British colonies, including India, Kenya, and South Africa.
- Preliminary Inquiry
The introduction of the summary committal procedure under part VIII of the CPC is an alternative to the Preliminary Injury. The Commission found that the two modes were, at the time of enactment of the CPC, necessary due to the centralisation of the National Prosecution Authority, and the need to mitigate delays in the committal of accused persons to the High Court for trial. However, the decentralisation of the National Prosecutions Authority has resulted in the redundancy of the Preliminary Inquiry. The Preliminary Inquiry has also be criticised for being an unnecessary expense on the part of witnesses, and for extending the time in within which a matter may be concluded. Stakeholders submitted that the procedure is archaic and should be removed as it is rarely resorted to.
- Power of the DPP to Offer no Evidence
One of the ways in which criminal proceedings may be terminated is by the prosecution offering no evidence. This principle is provided for in Shamwana and 7 others v. The People. Stakeholders submitted that it should be provided for in order to ensure that the CPC is comprehensive. Under the comparative study, it was found that similar to Zambia, many African jurisdictions rely on case law and Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice regarding procedure on offering no evidence.
- Hostile Witness
The criminal law principle on how to proceed where a witness turns hostile is not provided for in legislation, but in case law, in Munalula v. The people. Stakeholders submitted that it should be provided for in order to ensure that the CPC is comprehensive. Under the comparative study, it was found that the Evidence Act of Australia provide for how a hostile witness may be dealt with. It states, inter alia, that a party who called a witness may, with the leave of the court, question the witness, as though the party were cross-examining the witness.
- Private Prosecutions
In the case of Wang Shunxue v. The Attorney General and another CCZ 3 of 2021) [2021] ZMCC the court held that a person may not conduct a private prosecution except with the permission of the DPP. Stakeholders submitted that this decision prejudices the intention of the law which is to provide a complainant with the opportunity to pursue a prosecution where the DPP fails or refuses to do so. Under the comparative study, it was found that in South Africa, there are two types of private prosecutions- private prosecution by an individual on the basis of a certificate issued by the DPP; and, secondly, private prosecution on the basis of specific pieces of legislation which requires no certificate from the DPP.
- Victim Impact Statements
Section 302 of the CPC states that “The court may, before passing a sentence, receive such evidence as it thinks fit, in order to inform itself as to the sentence proper to be passed.” Stakeholders submitted that this provision is not often exercised, and that it could be used to receive victim impact statements if it was clearly drafted.
The impact statement assists the court to determine appropriate sentences; gives the victim an opportunity to participate in determining the outcome of a process that they are affected by; and may assist with the emotional well-being of the victim. Countries like Canada (section 722(2) of the Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985) and South Africa (section 274 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977) provide for the procedure in detail in their legislation.
- Discovery
The CPC provides for discovery in the High Court but does not provide for discovery in the Subordinate Court. This has resulted in trial by ambush and has compromised the ability of accused persons to adequately prepare a defence, which is inconsistent with the Constitution. Under the comparative study, it was found that in South Africa, discovery is provided for in lower courts through Rule 23 of the Magistrates Courts Act, which entitles a party to a matter to have disclosed to him, documents relating to a matter in issue, that are in possession of the opposing party.
- Sentencing jurisdiction
Stakeholders submitted that the sentencing jurisdiction for Magistrates in the CPC is inadequate, with the maximum being 9 years imprisonment. Magistrates therefore preside over matters for which they do not have the jurisdiction to pass a sentence, such as defilement which has a minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years, or offences under the Anti-Human Trafficking Act which have minimum mandatory sentences of 25 years. The justification for the limited sentencing jurisdiction was that Magistrates were not qualified lawyers and lacked experience, which is no longer the case to a great extent.
ZLDC and Technical Committee Recommendations
Based on the Commission findings, the following recommendations are made:
In the PC-
- All criminal offences, with the exception of regulatory offences should be repealed from specialised Acts and incorporated into the PC, and all criminal procedures should be repealed from specialised Acts and incorporated into the CPC. This will prevent the duplication of offences, promote uniform application of the law, and ease administration of criminal law.
- Repeal or amend as appropriate, provisions that are reminiscent of the colonial era. In the PC, these include, section 3 on the General rule of interpretation; section 34 on Deportation within Zambia; section 71 on Defamation of foreign princes; and section 73 on Piracy. In the CPC, these include section 36 on arrest by magistrate and section 260 on Practice of the High Court in its criminal jurisdiction. Amend the PC and CPC by using gender neutral language, updating the court structure in accordance with the Constitution, and replacing the phrase “carnal knowledge” with “sexual intercourse”; and revising penalty units upwards where necessary, in consideration of the prevailing economic climate.
- Provisions relating to defamation should be repealed, as they compromise freedom of expression and are inconsistent with international law and best practice. Redress can be sought through civil litigation.
- The words ‘idiot’ and ‘imbecile’ in the PC and CPC should be replaced with the more appropriate term of ‘a person with a mental disability’ in order to be consistent with international standards relating to persons with disabilities.
- Whilst it is desirable to repeal minimum mandatory sentences, in consideration of stakeholder views, there is a need to first develop sentencing guidelines that would ensure consistent and proportionate sentencing. The United Kingdom and South Africa have taken a similar approach, by adopting sentencing guidelines.
- Whilst the need to enhance legislation in relation to promoting the access to bail is recognised, in consideration of stakeholder views, there is need to first address administrative issues such as the ability to determine the true identity of accused persons; enhancement of the registration of previous offenders, and access to these records by the courts and other relevant stakeholders; and the capacity to monitor and access accused persons once released on bail, especially on serious offences.
- Whilst the need to criminalise child marriage is recognised, there is need to first determine the minimum age for customary and statutory marriage in the Marriage Act, Chapter 50 of the Laws of Zambia.
- Whilst the need to explicitly criminalise marital rape is recognised, in consideration of stakeholder views, it is recommended that sensitization on the occurrence and impact of sexual violence within intimate partner relationships should be carried out with a view to ultimately enhancing the legal protection of parties to a marriage from sexual violence.
- Whilst the need to repeal petty offences is recognised, in consideration of stakeholder views, these offences should remain in legislation up to the point when an alternative, administrative method of dealing with these vices is developed. Otherwise, this would result in a lacuna in the maintenance of law and order.
- Replace section 6 of the PC with section 3 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which provides the Court with jurisdiction to try a matter were the accused person is a foreigner who commits an offence against a Zambian person, outside Zambia. This would address the similar issue that arose in the case of Ngati and Others v The People .
- Amend the PC to reflect a minimum age of criminal responsibility of14 years, in accordance with the recommended international standard. This further means that there will not be a rebuttable minimum age for criminal responsibility or a separate age for criminal responsibility in sexual offences that is dependent on gender.
- Repeal the offence of bigamy.
In the CPC-
- Insert a provision that would allow the Court to permit oral evidence to be adduced by way of video-link conference.
- Repeal section 11 of the CPCallowing the Chief Justice to permit the Subordinate Court to try an offence only triable in the High Court as it is archaic.
- Repeal sections 40-53 of the CPC on non-conviction based security for good behaviour, as it is prejudicial and inconsistent with international law.
- The provision relating to preliminary inquiry from section 223-226 then from 228-246 should be repealed as it is redundant.
- Insert a provision on the power of the DPP to offer no evidence. This provision should be informed by the court’s decision in Shamwana and 7 others v. The People.
- Insert a provision outlining the procedure where a witness turns hostile. The provision should be informed by the court’s decision in Munalula v. The people.
- Insert a provision to the effect that a person shall not require the permission of the DPP to carry out a private prosecution.
- Redraft section 302 to clearly outline that a victim may, at his/her discretion, provide an impact statement after judgement but before sentencing. This will enhance the rights of victims.
- Introduce a new section in the CPC to provide for discovery in the subordinate court. It should replicate the provisions for discovery in the High Court. It will allow the accused person to adequately prepare for his defence in accordance with Article 18(2)(c) of the Constitution and international law.
- Revise the sentencing jurisdiction of magistrates upwards to a maximum of twenty-five years imprisonment.
Conclusion
The Commission has compiled its research findings including all stakeholder submissions and recommendations of the Technical Committee in the Project Report; and has reflected all recommendations of the Technical Committee in the draft Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code Bills, which are to be handed over to the Minister of Justice, today, at this ceremony.
The Commission would like to thank the Ministry of Justice for entrusting it with the great responsibility of carrying out this law review process; stakeholders in the criminal justice system who dedicated themselves to the consultative process; institutions in the countries visited for the comparative study, for being receptive to the Commission and being invested in the development of the Zambian legal framework; the United Nations Development Program and the German Agency for International Cooperation for facilitating the law review process through financial support; and finally, the Technical Committee Chaired by Honourable Mr. Justice Chalwe Mchenga, who ably guided the law review process and shared their immeasurable knowledge and experience working in the criminal justice system.
It is the Commissions hope and that of the Technical Committee that the work done will contribute to the development of a suitable and effective criminal justice system and the legislative framework in Zambia.
READ FULL REPORT: