No children to be detained in prison
The Bill under section 60(1) completely prohibits admission into prison of any child in conflict with the law under any circumstances. This aligns with the Child Care Protection and Justice Act which prohibits the imprisonment of children. This was reaffirmed by the High Court in 2018 in the case of R v Children in Detention at Bvumbwe and Kachere Prisons.

Health care for pregnant women and oversight of social welfare officers over unweaned children detained with their mothers
Section 61 of the Bill introduces a new provision for the admission of pregnant women and places a duty on the officer-in-charge of prison to ensure a pregnant woman is placed in a prison close to a medical facility that can provide the necessary medical service associated with the pregnancy. This aligns with Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol which obligates Malawi to ensure that the right to health of women, including sexual and reproductive health, is protected. The Bill expands on the requirements for admission into prison for unweaned children. Section 62 introduces the best interests of the child principle and requires that the admission of an unweaned child should be done on the recommendation of a social welfare officer who shall also recommend to the Chief Commissioner when the child should leave the prison. The Bill further protects the identity of those children by requiring the prison officer to keep under seal a record of unweaned children. However, the Bill takes away the requirement of provision to unweaned children of clothing and necessities at the State’s expense, which is provided under the current Prison Act. This poses a significant threat to the health of the child. Where family is unable to take care of the child, and the child remains with the mother in prison for up to three years, providing food, nappies, clothing and bedding is critical. This ought to be the duty of the State as circumstantial children are the direct result of the State’s decision to incarcerate the mother.

Humane conditions of detention
The Bill under section 71 introduces a new section on conditions of confinement of prisoners. It focuses on human dignity by requiring the Chief Commissioner to ensure that prisoners are held in cells that meet minimum standards and requirements for human dignity. This is an important provision considering that Malawi prisons remain overcrowded with an occupancy level of 236% against its capacity. The High Court in 2009 in the case of Masangano v Attorney General & Ors. already declared the current prison conditions to be inhumane. The Chief Commissioner of Prisons will be statutorily bound to ensure the decongestion of prisons in order to be compliant with section 71 of the Bill. Further section 73 of the Bill requires the Chief Commissioner to take reasonable steps to ensure that the holding capacity of a prison is not exceeded by transferring prisoners to prisons with capacity, or halfway houses and open prisons. The Chief Commissioner can further recommend to the Minister a list of prisoners to be considered for release on licence or parole and request a Presidential pardon, reduction, stay of execution, or remission of sentences. This means that once the Bill is passed into law, the Chief Commissioner will be statutorily bound to reduce the current prison population from 15000 to 8000, which is the holding capacity of Malawi’s prisons.

Right to health of prisoners
Section 74 of the Bill recognises the right to health of prisoners at the expense of the State or at their own expense. It further prohibits involuntary medical examination or treatment unless there is a significant risk to the prisoner and others. Involuntary mental health examination is only permitted under section 75 where there is no less intrusive alternative reasonably available and there is a significant risk of serious harm to the prisoner or others. Any forced feeding of prisoners is strictly prohibited under section 76 of the Bill unless by the order of the High Court on the application of the officer-in-charge of the prison.

Prisoners with special needs
Section 78 of the Bill creates an obligation on the prison to make provisions for the special needs of prisoners to ensure humane and dignified confinement in prison. This includes providing special diets to pregnant and old prisoners, sanitary materials, and related amenities. The definition of special needs includes prisoners who require special care because of physical, psychological, or medical conditions, age, mental or learning difficulties dietary problems, or chronic illness. The Bill however does not mention the needs of circumstantial children (children with their mothers in prison). The best interests of the child would require that the Bill makes specific provision for the education, recreation, and health needs of children who are in prison with their mothers.

Prisoners’ solitary confinement
The Bill under section 79 still maintains solitary confinement of prisoners. It should be noted that the Mandela Rules state that solitary confinement of more than 15 consecutive days is regarded as a form of torture. Although the Bill gives power to the officer-in-charge of the prison to terminate solitary confinement if a medical officer believes such confinement poses a threat to the physical or mental health of the prisoner, there is no maximum period for solitary confinement under the Bill. This then poses a risk of prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement which would be a violation of the right to freedom from torture inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.

Access to legal advice
In another significant reform, under section 82, the officer-in-charge of a prison is obligated to inform on admission, every prisoner of their right to seek legal advice from a legal practitioner of their choice, where it is required in the interests of justice, to be provided a legal practitioner at the expense of the State. If this provision is passed into law, it will significantly improve access to justice for prisoners who overstay on remand or await judgments for a long period without recourse to legal representation.

Labour performed by a prisoner
It is interesting to note that section 84 of the Bill introduces labour fees for prisoners. A prisoner at the approval of the Chief Commissioner, may engage in labour within or outside the prison at a fee or other consideration. Section 85 establishes a Prisoners Labour Fund which shall among other things be used for reintegration of prisoners back into society on completion of sentence. The composition of the Labour Fund Committee however only comprises of prison officials and does not have prisoners’ representative or an external person to provide checks and balances for the Fund.

Compassionate release of terminally ill prisoners
Section 119 of the Bill empowers the Chief Commissioner to petition the High Court for compassionate release of a prisoner who has been certified by an ad-hoc committee of three medical practitioners that the prisoner is terminally ill. Further section 120 of the Bill empowers the Chief Commissioner to recommend to the Minister or the President that a prisoner be considered for pardon, release on parole, or licence where it is certified by an ad-hoc committee of five medical practitioners that the prisoner needs home-based care.

Release on licence
Section 121 of the Bill empowers the Minister to release a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment on licence after consultation with the Chief Commissioner. The Minister has the power to recall the prisoner to prison and the licence would cease to have effect. The Bill however does not have clear guidelines to safeguard against abuse of power by the Minister in giving and recalling the licence. Section 122 permits prisoners to apply for release on a temporary licence through the officer-in-charge, sixty days before the proposed date of release. The officer-in-charge shall consider among other things the good behaviour of the prisoner, their likelihood to return to prison, the sentence already served, resources for monitoring the prisoner, and if the prisoner is in the category of prisoners excluded from release on temporary licence. The Minister has the power to grant the temporary licence on the recommendation of the Chief Commissioner and any decision to grant or refuse the temporary licence shall be communicated in writing with reasons.

Release on parole
Section 123 of the Bill establishes a Parole Board which is chaired by a retired Chief Commissioner, with members being one member of good standing in the community, an officer of the rank of Commissioner in Service, a prison chaplain, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, and a parole officer. The Board will among other things select and place prisoners on parole. Under section 130, a prisoner who is not disqualified by his or her sentence and has exhibited good behaviour may apply to the Board to be released on parole. In terms of section 131 where an application is refused, a prisoner can re-apply if new grounds to support the application have arisen. The Board has powers under section 133 to revoke the parole licence and inform the Chief Commissioner to take the prisoner back into custody if it is discovered that they were not eligible for parole or they have contrived the conditions for parole. The High Court has powers under section 134 to review the decision of the Board to deny or revoke a parole licence and a prisoner can make an application for review within thirty days of receiving the decision of the Board.

Inspectorate of Prisons
The Bill makes provision for the functions of the Inspectorate of Prisons under section 138 and sets up the secretariat of the Inspectorate under section 140 which is headed by the Executive Secretary. The Bill also sets up the Funds of the Inspectorate which is a positive development considering that the Inspectorate despite being a constitutional body did not have any established funds to discharge its important constitutional mandate. The Bill therefore increases the independence of the Inspectorate, allowing it to better fulfil its oversight functions. The Bill, however needs to provide for accountability of the Inspectorate by ensuring that visits are conducted as required by the law and the Inspectorate should be able to inspect the prisons where need arises without being restricted to quarterly visits.

Independent prison visitors
The Bill also introduces another oversight mechanism of independent prison visitors under section 143 of the Bill. A person with a demonstrable interest in the affairs of prisons, can make an application to the Inspectorate to be an independent prison visitor. The Inspectorate will assess the application and look at the suitability of the person as an independent prison visitor by consulting with community organizations. The Minister shall publish in the Gazette the names of persons appointed as independent prison visitors. The Independent prison visitors have duties under section 144 of the Bill to visit prisons in which they are appointed, at least once every two months, and visit parts of the prison. Problematically, the Bill provides that female independent visitors may visit only those parts of each prison set aside for the detention of female detainees. Although this provision might be for the protection of female independent visitors, it might limit the inspection of male prisons in an area where there is only a female independent visitor. Similarly, it does not place the same limit on male independent visitors to not visit female facilities. Instead, any independent prison visitor should have access to all sections of a prison and be provided with their own security during this inspection. Prison visitors can also test the quality of the food for prisoners and inquire into the complaints of prisoners. The Minister is mandated to make regulations for the operation of the duties of the independent prison visitors.

Visitors Committee
The Bill under section 145 sets up visitors’ committees which are established by the Inspectorate for a particular area consisting of independent prison visitors appointed for the prisons in that area. The Committee is mandated to meet at least once every three months to determine complaints of prisoners not resolved by the officer-in-charge, submit to the Inspectorate complaints that they fail to have resolved, schedule visits, promote the interests of the community in prison matters, and submit reports to the Inspectorate.

List of remanded prisoners and those whose sentences have not been confirmed
Under section 161, the officer-in-charge is obligated to provide the High Court during the session of the Court, a list of remanded prisoners and those whose sentences have not been confirmed within his or her prison. This provision will address the backlog of cases of prisoners who overstay on remand or complete their sentences without being reviewed by the High Court.

Is the Bill a win?
The Bill has brought a lot of transformative provisions that will significantly reduce overcrowding in prisons, improve access to justice, and protect of rights of prisoners if it is enacted into law and fully implemented. However, there are still some gaps, that must be addressed concerning the protection of circumstantial children, solitary confinements, management of the Labour Fund, effective prison oversight, and adequate nutrition. This Bill when passed into law will require adequate resourcing by the Government to fully implement it.

From overcrowding and inadequate resources to lack of rehabilitation, prisons across Africa face many challenges.

In Malawi, prisons are not only overpopulated but also underfunded, leaving inmates in inhumane conditions that violate their basic rights.

Despite a sustained lobby for better budgets and conditions, much work remains to be done.

Kenya’s recent reforms offer a compelling example on how Malawi can transform its prison system into a productive and rehabilitative institution.

Kenya’s initiative to turn prisons into industries is a model worth exploring.

The east African country has 135 prisons which house over 63 000 inmates.

The Kenyan government is shifting the prison system from mere confinement to rehabilitating offenders, training them in various trades and making prisons self-sufficient.

Kenya is enhancing inmates’ skills and making prisons financially sustainable by focusing on agriculture, carpentry, construction and other industries.

Malawi, which has 23 district prisons, can learn from this approach.

Kenya’s prison reforms include introducing vocational and agricultural training to ensure that prisons are not just places of confinement but avenues for rehabilitation and personal development. Already, 8 500 inmates have learned various trades and Kenya is expanding its prison farming programmes to produce food for the correctional facilities and the country.

In Malawi, there are similar initiatives, albeit scanty. With the aid of partners, the Malawi Prison Service runs a skills project focusing on barbering, tailoring, carpentry and bricklaying.

However, these initiatives are financially constrained and they lack infrastructure.

Expanding such programmes to cover more trades and industries would offer inmates the skills to reintegrate into society, reducing recidivism.

Moreover, vocational training can help underfunded prisons become more self-sustaining, as inmates produce goods that boost the economy.

Kenya’s prison industries have already made significant contributions to the economy, producing furniture, baked goods and farm produce.

For example, Kamiti Maximum Prison has Kenya’s largest prison furniture industry and has been involved in multi-billion shilling projects such as renovating Kenya’s National Assembly chambers.

Prisons also produce food through potato farming in Nyandarua and rice milling in Mwea.

Malawi’s prisons have the potential to adopt a similar model.

The idea of converting prisons like Mikuyu and Mwanza into farms, where inmates can grow crops, raise livestock and produce food for the broader market, is promising.

The K100 million allocated for establishing megafarms in the country’s prisons during the 2022/23 Mid-Year Budget review is a step in the right direction. However, this funding must be utilised effectively to expand production and create self-sufficient facilities.

By training inmates in agriculture and other trades, the country could reduce its dependency on external resources and ensure prisons contribute to national food security.

Kenya’s prison reforms include improving inmates’ living conditions and welfare.

These include better housing, medical care and diet as well as environmental and climate change mitigation efforts such as planting trees.

These changes not only benefit the inmates but also reflect a rights-based approach, ensuring that inmates are treated with dignity and respect.

Centre for Human Rights Education Advice and Assistance (Chreaa) and the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (Salc) have long advocated improved prison conditions in Malawi.

The revised prison budget in the 2022/23 mid-year national budget review, which increased the prison food budget, is a positive step.

However, the current living conditions in many prisons remain dire, with overcrowding and low access to healthcare.

Malawi must prioritise improving these conditions to ensure that prisoners’ rights are respected and create a favourable environment for rehabilitation and productivity.

Kenya’s reforms are anchored in legal and policy changes aimed at improving prison governance. This includes reviewing the Prisons Act, the Borstal Institutions Act and the Community Service Orders Act.

In Malawi, passing of the long-awaited Prisons Bill could serve as the foundation for comprehensive reforms.

The proposed law would modernise the legal framework governing prisons for better oversight and management of emerging industries and rehabilitation programmes.

Chreaa urges the Malawi Government and all stakeholders to support reforms that prioritise prisoners’ rights, welfare and rehabilitation. n

*The author is the Chreaa executive director

31 July, 2024

By Llyod Chitsulo

Human rights organisations, including the Malawi Legal Aid Bureau, have praised a High Court ruling that gave 30 days for the State to deport illegal immigrants.

The ruling, delivered at the Mzuzu Registry,  followed a case brought before the court by 25 immigrants who were illegally detained at Mzuzu Prison and, during routine prison visits between July 2 and 4 this year, the Malawi Legal Aid Bureau discovered that over 100 illegal immigrants were kept there.

The immigrants were being kept despite their remand warrants having expired in January this year while others had finished serving their respective sentences; hence, being detained illegally.

In a joint statement yesterday, Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistant (Chreaa), Southern Africa Litigation Centre (Salc) and Malawi Legal Aid Bureau, described the ruling as a progressive, stressing that people should not be detained indefinitely.

Chreaa executive director Victor Mhango said a huge number of undocumented immigrants continue being detained in the country’s prisons for indefinite periods.

He said: “Sometimes the number of immigrants is equal to the prison’s capacity.

“This puts undue pressure on the prisons which are already overcrowded and do not have enough food to feed prisoners.”

Salc criminal justice cluster lead Chikondi Chijozi said it is commendable that the Malawi Legal Aid Bureau took up the matter having observed that there were many immigrants that are detained illegally in prisons.

“The judgement is progressive as it urges the State to consider alternative options such as issuing temporary permits, release on bonds/recognisance and encouraging self-repatriation,” she said.

Malawi Legal Aid Bureau assistant director Chimwemwe Chithope Mwale also expressed delight at the ruling. He said Legal Aid Bureau was compelled to take up the matter as it was concerned about the situation.

He said: “When we visited Mzuzu Prison and found that over 100 immigrants were being detained, we were concerned with the overcrowding in the prisons and our assessment of the cases showed that they were illegally detained and we decided to challenge that.”

In his ruling on Monday, Mzuzu High Court Judge Justus Kishindo said under the Immigration Act, 30 days ought to be ample time within which undocumented immigrants ought to be deported.

He ordered that the State should provide to the court a progress report on the steps taken to deport the illegal immigrants and further sustained an order that children should not be detained in prison.

Chithope Mwale represented the immigrants in the case with support from Chreaa and Salc.

22 July, 2024

By Thomas Kachere

Patricio, now 45, does not remember the year 2003.

“I was in prison that year, when prison conditions were bad. This is despite that some of the convicts that are sent to prison do not serve prison sentences with hard labour while others are imprisoned with hard labour, depending on the magistrate’s pronouncements in court.

“That time, I was one of the prisoners who were serving sentences without the condition of hard. As such, we were supposed to be treated well, albeit this was not the case. We could, sometimes, be asked to go and slash the grass along the road. What makes me remember the year 2003 is that we were informed that the Prison Act was being reviewed and that, in some cases, inmates would be given a chance to earn an income while in prison,” he said.

However, Patricio came out of prison in 2018 without any progress on the issue.

Now the Ministry of Justice has said that the Prison Bill is in its priorities’ tray.

Ministry spokesperson Frank Namangale said they are aware of the challenges that are being faced by the Malawi Prison Service.

“There is that possibility [of taking it to Parliament]. It is one of the bills on our priority list,” Namangale said.

The Prisons Bill was first drafted in 2003 with support from Penal Reform International.

The exercise was meant to reform the current Act, which was enacted in 1956.

The current Prison Act predates the establishment of democracy in Malawi and the Malawi Constitution.

Due to worries that the bill which had been drafted was not reflecting socio-economic circumstances of that time, review exercises on the bill were suspended indefinitely.

In 2013, a renewed attempt to redraft the bill was supported through the establishment of a Special Commission of the Law Commission.

The activity was funded by UNODC, with a report and subsequent updates being published in 2018.

The bill moves away from the theme of retribution and punishment, which is ingrained in the Prisons Act of 1956, towards a more humane treatment of individuals through rehabilitation and reintegration.

It also includes suggestions of open prisons, halfway houses and prisoner release on temporary licence as well as the release of prisoners on parole.

It also removes corporal punishment.

Commissioner General of the Malawi Prison Service Masauko Wiscot confirmed that the bill has stayed for a long time without being taken to Parliament, a development that continues to put more pressure on their department.

The commissioner general also noted that the law commission report has created new divisions, which will help them to implement the new changes.

Further to that, the government has given them the authority to start recruiting officers to fill positions.

“We want the members of Parliament to support the bill when it goes to Parliament. One of the challenges that we, as a service, are facing is overcrowding in our cells and this bill introduces a new division of community correction, where it has the parole, public works and community service.

“Currently, the only way used to decongest our prisons is through pardoning. We feel if this bill is passed with the areas that have been introduced, it will help to decongest our prisons. So we would want the members of Parliament to support the bill once it is taken to Parliament because the Act we are using was enacted in 1956 and most of its provisions have been outlawed by the Constitution,” he said.

As at June 2024, the prison population was 16,536 against a capacity of around 7,000 individuals.

Meanwhile, Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament Chairperson Peter Dimba has said they, as a committee, are ready to support progressive laws in the country.

“The Prison Bill is one of the bills that is in our hearts. We have had this bill for more than a decade now and we have been talking about prison reforms for a long time. What is remaining is to take an action so that the bill is taken to Parliament and passed. “Otherwise, we are not happy that government has done nothing on this, apart from just talking. We, as a committee, will be engaging stakeholders on the issue. It is sad that we are the only one in the region with archaic laws governing the prison service. Our friends in Zambia have moved ahead on this,” Dimba said.

On her part, Southern Africa Litigation Centre lawyer Chikondi Chijozi has expressed worry that Malawi is still using archaic laws at a time several things have changed.

The guiding principles of the new bill, according to Victor Mhango, Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance Executive Director, would incorporate rehabilitation, reintegration, social cohesion and reformation and states that conditions of detention shall be humane and in accordance with international human rights principles.

Mhango said through reintegration, released individuals can then contribute to the financial and economic development of the country and break the cycle of repeat offending due to poverty.

“The new bill will create a parole system which will help to alleviate the major overcrowding and inhumane conditions that detainees face currently and signal a move towards humane treatment and rehabilitation and reintegration of detainees guided by the Constitution and international instruments,” Mhango said.

According to Mhango, there is enough support from those within the Prison Service to enact the bill in order to help decongest prisons and improve conditions for those detained, leading to a better-functioning prisons system.

“Is it because it is talking about the prisoners? The process started in 2000 and we have seen bills coming and passing. But this bill was never taken to our Parliament, which means it is an issue of copy and paste from our colonial masters.

“Several things have changed. We have the 1994 Constitution, which has the Bill of Rights,” he indicated.

In 2018, the Malawi Inspectorate of Prisons found that “failure to provide adequate food and medical care is a serious breach of national and international legal and policy instruments and amounts to a breach of human rights”.

It further found that almost all prisons had failed to comply with statutory regulations where they were serving non-diverse diets of nsima with beans or peas, which is notably lacking in vegetables or meat.

Surely, these are indications of a prison system overtaken by events.

BY James Chavula

Two of the three arms of government, the Legislature and the Executive, risk contempt of court sanction for delaying to review colonial penal laws fuelling random arrests of the poor while the well-off go scot-free.

The risk comes after a July 22 2022 High Court of Malawi order issued in Zomba for the Executive and the Legislature to review Section 184 of the Penal Code by July 22 this year.

High Court Judge Zione Ntaba also ordered the two arms to report to the court on June 22 what they have done about the offences deemed petty and discriminatory by activists.

When The Nation asked both the Ministry of Justice and Parliament on the status of implementation of the orders three weeks before reporting to court, the duo could not outline the steps so far taken.

On behalf of the Legislature, Speaker of Parliament Catherine Gotani Hara said: “Our understanding is that the court order was directed at the Ministry of Justice because we don’t generate Bills. Parliament was only mentioned because the House has the duty to debate proposed laws from the Executive and private members.”

However, the court ruling stated: “The Executive through the Ministry of Justice [the Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions and Chief Legislative Counsel as well the Ministry of Home Affairs [now Homeland Security] and Inspector General and the Legislature through Speaker working with the relevant committees should within 24 months from the date hereof, effectively review the entire Section 184 of the Penal Code and effectively amend the provisions, especially those declared unconstitutional in a manner that ensures consistency with the Constitution and to take care of any unintended gaps in the law.”

The judge warned the said officers, including Attorney General Thabo Chakaka Nyirenda, that the court judgement “remains a valid order” unless vacated and “non-compliance of the same is contempt”.

On the steps the Executive has undertaken, Ministry of Justice spokesperson Frank Namangale said: “We are mindful of that court judgement. We are taking care of this.”

Since Malawi attained self-rule from Britain in 1964, policymakers and lawmakers have missed critical junctures to modernise laws in line with the wind of change, the Bill of Rights, Malawians’ aspirations and international obligations.

Periodically, some citizens have risen to challenge repressive laws as did nightclub DJ Henry Banda, imbiber Ishmael Mwale and roast meat vendor who were randomly arrested alongside 20 others in Kasungu on March 27 2018.

In the Constitutional Court ruling, Ntaba abolished the sweeping arrests of the Kasungu trio as unconstitutional, a breach of human rights and the State’s departure from its duty to protect all citizens.

Strangely, the court in 2017 had declared the offence, commonly known as vakabu (rogue and vagabond), unconstitutional after vendor Mayeso Gwanda challenged his wee-hour arrest on his way to buy fish.

The vendor who brought changes to the law said he was appalled that the police shoved him into a vehicle driven by someone who went scot-free despite being equally on the prowl the morning he was detained.

Lawyer Chikondi Chijozi represented Gwanda and the Kasungu petitioners with support from the Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance and Southern Africa Litigation Centre.

She questioned government arms’ failure to table the law review in Parliament, wondering when they realised the court order was misdirected and what did they do about it.

Some lawmakers have lamented Parliament’s delays to facilitate the review of Section 184 of the Penal Code, which provides for the offence of rogue and vagabond. The development has since riled human rights defenders.

In 2018, three people from Kasungu challenged police sweeping exercises after they were arrested for the offences of rogue and vagabond.

High Court Judge Zione Ntaba then overturned the earlier conviction of the applicants and ordered that their fines be returned and that they also be compensated.

In the case, which was supported by Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) and Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA), Ntaba ordered Parliament to quickly review the provision under Section 184 of the Penal Code.

She went further to refer to the High Court’s previous decision, in the case involving the State and Mayeso Gwanda, where it made the same order.

Ntaba reiterated that the laws had to be reviewed.

The Court also expressed concern that no action had been taken by the Legislature to make sure that the review of the laws was done.

The Court then ordered that by July 22, 2024, Section 184 of the Penal Code and other laws that violate human rights should be reviewed.

But after 22 months from the time the Court made its orders, some lawmakers have confided in us that nothing has happened on the issue.

“We do not know anything to that effect,” said a member of the Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament.

Another lawmaker, who is not in the Legal Affairs Committee, corroborated the sentiments, saying, so far, they have not been told anything about the issue.

Meanwhile, lawyer for the applicants, namely SALC’s Chikondi Chijozi, has expressed worry over the development.

“If you recall, the Court had given Parliament 24 months to review Section 184 of the Penal Code, which provides for the offence of rogue and vagabond and now we are in the 22nd month and we have not seen any progress. However, according to the court order, Parliament is supposed to report to the Court by June 22, 2024 on the steps it has taken to review the said section. So far, we have not heard or seen any progress; so, it is quite worrying to note that nothing has been done on the issue to comply with the order,” Chijozi said.

Parliament spokesperson Ian Mwenye referred us to the Ministry of Justice, whose spokesperson Frank Namangale asked for ample time before he could comment on the issue.