George Peter Mwanza & Melvin Beene v Attorney General (2019) 

1. Case Title & Citation 

Full name: George Peter Mwanza and Melvin Beene v Attorney General (2019) 

Citation: Supreme Court of Zambia, Appeal No. 153/2016, Selected Judgment No. 33 of 2019 

2. 2. Court Name & Bench 

Court: Supreme Court of Zambia 

Bench: Full Supreme Court bench (collective judgment) 

3. Date of Judgment 

9 December 2019 

4. Parties Involved 

Appellants: George Peter Mwanza and Melvin Beene — HIV-positive prisoners incarcerated at Lusaka Central Prison. 

Respondent: The Attorney General of Zambia — representing the State. 

5. Facts of the Case 

The appellants, while serving prison sentences at Lusaka Central Prison, alleged that the State failed to provide them with adequate nutrition and sanitary living conditions. 

Being HIV-positive, they required balanced diets to maintain their health, but the prison diet was inadequate. 

They further complained of overcrowded cells, poor ventilation, and the absence of flushable toilets, which exposed them to diseases such as tuberculosis and diarrhoea. 

They petitioned the High Court, claiming violations of: 

Article 12 — the right to life, 

Article 15 — the right to protection from inhuman and degrading treatment. 

The High Court dismissed the case, reasoning that access to food and proper living conditions falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 112(d)), which are non-justiciable. 

The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court. 

         6. Issues Raised 

• Whether the State’s failure to provide adequate nutrition to HIV-positive prisoners violated the right to life (Article 12). 
• Whether overcrowded and unsanitary prison conditions amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 15). 
• Whether socio-economic rights, though listed under Directive Principles of State Policy, can be indirectly enforced when their denial infringes on fundamental rights.

7. Arguments of the Parties 

Appellants: 

• The inadequate diet, coupled with their HIV status, directly endangered their lives and violated Article 12. 
• The unhygienic, overcrowded prison environment amounted to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, prohibited under Article 15. 
• Socio-economic rights (such as nutrition and sanitation) must be enforceable where their denial undermines civil and political rights. 
• Invoked international human rights instruments, particularly: 

 Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (right to an adequate standard of living, including food and health), 

Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). 

Respondent (Attorney General): 

Argued that nutrition and sanitation fall under Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 112(d)), which are aspirational and not enforceable in court. 

Contended that the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition, as the matters raised related to policy rather than constitutional obligations. 

8. Judgment / Final Decision 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. 

It held that: 

• The right to life (Article 12) necessarily includes access to adequate food, particularly for individuals with special health needs. 
• The prison’s overcrowded and unsanitary conditions violated Article 15, amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment.
• Socio-economic rights can be indirectly enforceable where their denial threatens the enjoyment of fundamental rights. 

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi 

Purposive interpretation of the Constitution: 

The Court applied a liberal and purposive approach, ruling that the right to life is not limited to mere existence, but extends to conditions necessary for human survival and dignity. 

Integration of socio-economic rights into civil rights: 

Although socio-economic rights are placed under Directive Principles, they can become enforceable when their denial infringes on fundamental rights like life and dignity. 

Thus, the right to food, while framed as a directive principle, was judicially recognised as part of the right to life. 

Application of Article 15: 

Overcrowded, unhygienic prison conditions were recognised as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, thereby breaching Article 15. 

International human rights law: 

The Court drew on Article 25 of the UDHR and Article 11 of the ICESCR, acknowledging that Zambia’s Constitution should be interpreted consistently with international human rights standards. 

10. Conclusion / Observations 

Significance of the Case: 

• This case is a landmark in Zambian human rights jurisprudence, affirming that socio-economic rights, though listed as non-justiciable, can be judicially enforced whenlinked to fundamental rights. 
• It expanded the scope of the right to life to include access to adequate food and upheld that inhuman conditions in prisons violate Article 15. 
• The decision set a precedent for future rights claims, especially those involving vulnerable or marginalised populations. 

Intern’s Reflection (Critical Analysis): 

• Progressive step: The Court’s reasoning demonstrates an important shift towards recognising the interdependence of all human rights. It rejected the rigid separation of civil/political and socio-economic rights. 
• Comparative significance: By adopting this interpretation, Zambia joins other progressive jurisdictions such as South Africa, India, and Kenya, where socio-economic rights have been successfully enforced through courts. 
• Implementation challenge: The ruling raises the question of practical enforcement. While the Court established a powerful principle, actual improvement in prison conditions requires political will, budgetary allocation, and sustained oversight. 
• Normative importance: The case affirms that the Constitution is a living instrument, capable of evolving to protect the dignity and health of individuals in vulnerable situations. 
• Bottom line: The judgment transformed Zambia’s human rights landscape by confirming that the right to life is more than survival , it is about living with dignity.