Malawi’s criminal justice system carries an under-examined fault line that only becomes visible in certain cases—particularly those involving sex, age and consent. It is not loud or dramatic, but it has a real impact on how justice is dispensed. The issue sits in the way child-protection laws allocate blame and legal risk.
On paper, Ernest Chimpeni’s conviction in Mchinji is straightforward. The court found that the complainant, C.S., was under the age of 18 at the time of the relationship. Under the Penal Code as amended in 2023, that finding alone is enough.
Once the complainant is a minor, an adult male’s belief about her age—reasonable or not—is irrelevant. But a closer look at the judgement reveals a system that offers protection by simplifying responsibility, while quietly tolerating gaps that can be exploited by people smart enough to game the system. Long story short, C.S.
[paywall]
testified that before her relationship with the accused, she was already one month pregnant by another man. This was not confusion. It was a calculated strategy.
She also admitted that she knowingly presented herself as an adult. She showed the accused a national identity card indicating she was born in 2006, even though she was actually born in 2008. The court accepted her explanation that the false age was registered after political inducement during voter registration, condemning the practice as harmful and unlawful.
None of this changed the outcome. Under the amended law, it could not, according to the learned magistrate. And that is precisely where the structural problem lies.
The law now treats adult men as bearing absolute risk. If the girl is under 18, liability follows. Full-stop.
But surrounding that certainty is a ring of unanswered questions. Why was the earlier sexual partner—whose relationship with the minor resulted in pregnancy—not investigated or charged? Why does deliberate misrepresentation of age, using state-issued documents, attract no legal scrutiny?
Why does admitted intent to misattribute paternity carry no consequence, even as it triggers severe liability for someone else? The framework is protective, but it is not symmetrical. Modern equality is not about pretending all actors are the same.
It is about ensuring that materially different conduct is treated differently. In this case, deception is acknowledged but neutralised. Institutional failure is recognised but absorbed.
The entire weight of the law lands on one point in the chain. This is not an argument against protecting minors. Strict liability exists for good reason.
Consent has too often been weaponised to excuse exploitation. Age gaps matter. Power imbalances matter.
[/paywall]
