Introduction
During
the 1800s, classicism as an approach became everything when describing child
crime and punishment in England. Classicism (unlike the current approaches on the subject
which are informed by cultural, medical and psychological discourse about
children and crime and therefore emphasise child interests and rights)
prescribes punishments that suit the crime, and this regardless of age. Under classicism there in England, for example, “children were seen as equally culpable
as adults when they committed an offence and were liable to the same penalties,
including incarceration in prisons and prison hulks, and transported to penal
colonies. (Yvonne Jewkes, 2004: 86). In Malawi, the first legislation on
children seemed to have been moulded with some elements of classicism at the
back of the head since it mostly intended to punish the child, kind of teaching
him or her a lesson that crime does not pay. After the 1994 (or you may call it
1995) Liberal Constitution, the approach had to change because the child was
now taken as someone who required nurturing and protection, and some
legislation in that light had to be introduced. This is how the country repealed
the old law—Children and Young Persons Act of 1969. And the new one—Child Care,
Protection and Justice Act—came into force only seven years ago, in 2010. While
this new legislation treats a child as a soul innocent, practice on the ground
seems to suggest otherwise, as everything seems to be going the classicism way,
once again putting the emphasis on his or her exploits rather than age. In the end, the world,
Malawi inclusive, has created the ‘adultified monster’ child one more time.
And this discussion is one huge question about this ‘adultified child’: Are we justified when our
reporting reflects more classicism (as did the UK in the early 1990s) and
less the new law as entreats the Child Care, Protection and Justice Act?
Law and anticipation
In
Clinical Legal Education, law is described as a profession at the heart of offering
solutions to human problems. To proffer solutions to human problems entails
understanding the various contexts in which humans live and operate, an approach
to law which should nudge legislators and even judges (case law) to always add
in the condiments of anticipation. This is critical especially when one takes
into account the fact that we now live in a fast-changing world as a result of
globalisation and other factors such as ICT.
Anticipation
therefore could mean imagining as many future scenarios and hurdles as possible
and working out beforehand how a particular piece of legislation can address
the same. I believe this is what it means ‘law is dynamic’, i.e. that it should
respond spontaneously to every problem no matter the setting and nature.
Many
a time I have heard people argue that our law-makers were over-generous with
the child, and that this is coming back to hit the society hard. For them, our
legislators had obviously lacked foresight over the form of child that was
going to incarnate from that innocence. Today, this child is increasingly being
symbolized by the incarnation of kind of enfant terrible—‘Child-Man’ or
‘Child-Woman’, ‘adultified’ child, the child with a loaded gun.
But
is the problem really with those who gave us this legislation, or are reporters
at fault for emphasizing crime when reporting child crime?
Should we forget anything ‘child’ and ‘innocent’ and go classicism, give sting to our laws, to respond with fire to exploits of this ‘Child-Man’ or ‘Child-Woman’?
The ‘Adultified’ Child in the West
I
have chosen the terms ‘Child-Man’ and ‘Child-Woman’ to mean that child who has
departed from the picture those who enacted laws had of him or her at the time of enactment. My argument
is whether it makes sense to stick to provisions that treat a child as a child
when that child has now chosen to define himself or herself as ‘Child-Man’ or
‘Child-Woman’, capable of executing that damage never before associated with anything
child. My argument is that law just as policy should depend on context, and so,
our law on children should reflect the current ‘aspirations’ of a child whose acts seem to suggest he or she wants to be treated more as ‘Child-Woman’ or ‘Child-Man’.
First, I will demonstrate the spoils of the so-called child as far as violence
and criminal acts are concerned, and then look at what the law says about the
child and what it is it does not say about this emerging fictitious ‘troublesome’
figure—‘Child-Man’ or ‘Child-Woman’.
Circa
2007, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended an
absolute minimum age of 12 for criminal
responsibility, that age at which one can be said to have known that the
act one was doing was wrong. According to The
Economist (see “The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility continues to
divide opinion” at www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017, dated March 15, 2017, the Committee
had also advised nations to increase it to a higher age level, meaning to move
the age up to, say, 13, 14, et cetera. But in the Philippines legislators there proposed
a piece of legislation that would reduce the age of responsibility from 15 to
9. The President there, Rodrigo Duterte who has taken a tough stance against
crime (especially on drugs), argues that reducing the age to 9 would ward off
those who recruit children (those who take advantage of the age of criminal
responsibility there—15) in drug trafficking.
In
Malawi, the Penal Code provides that a child not yet 10 years (in short, under
10), is protected by the defence or doctrine of doli incapax or simply the defence of immaturity, and so can never
be held to be criminally responsible. In fact, it used to be 7 until 2009.
However, in the age bracket 10 to 14, criminal responsibility or liability is
conditional, meaning person under the age of 14 years is not criminally responsible
for an act or omission unless it was
proved that at the time of doing the act or making the omission, he or she had
the capacity to know that he or she ought not do the act or omission. This is
the position in English law as well where “children between the ages of 10 and
14 can be held accountable for a crime, provided it can be established that
they knew they were committing it and they will—as a rule—be tried in a ‘youth
court’, which differs in style and approach to adult courts” (Jewkes, 2004:
91).
The
argument for entreating nations to raise the age for criminal responsibility is
that reduced age, for example, the 10 for Malawi and England and Wales, focuses
on criminalization and punishment at the expense of the goal to reform the
child ‘responsible’. Those who favour increasing the age, blame the reduced age
as the main reason children turn into recidivists (repeated offenders) once
released from ‘goal’. Such people would view the Philippines approach as retrogressive
and as a dangerous attempt to ‘adultify’ the child, i.e. treating the child as
though an adult, and so imposing on him or her the same punishment they would
on an adult.
But,
is ‘adultifying’ the child entirely wrong in a context where that child ‘chooses’
to act the adult?
There
is a huge dilemma on this question as observes Jewkes at page 57:
Children who commit crimes have
arguably become especially newsworthy since the murder (in the UK) of
two-year-old James Bulger by two ten-year-olds in 1993, which was the first
case for at least a generation in which the media constructed pre-teenage
children as ‘demons’ rather than as ‘innocents’ (Muncie, 1999a: 3). The case
also proved a watershed in terms of criminal justice and crime prevention. The
ten-year-olds were tried in adult court. . . .
The
approach by the Philippines could be labelled retrogressive, but events show
that, even the West, when confronted with the reality of the exploits of
children, choose the ‘adultifying’ route, or how does one explain the reduced
age for criminal responsibility of 10 for England and Wales? One would expect
England and Wales to beat Luxembourg and Belgium (both 18 years) or Spain and
Portugal (16 years).
Although
I seem to advance the argument that it is the child himself or herself who has
made this choice to assume adulthood way before his or her time, I am also
cognizance of the fact that society itself has played a huge role in
‘adultifying’ the child. This has come about in two ways: through allowing our
children to watch or witness barbaric acts of violence, for example mob justice
(also called ‘instant justice’); and through depicting the magnitude and
stature of crimes committed by young people the very way one would (depict) crimes committed by
adults.
It is
definitely the fault of the society that children can be exposed to terror and
trauma. Sometimes it scares to imagine what the future holds for our young
people taking into account the gruesome nature of some acts and images we treat
their eyes to. A chill would go down anyone’s spine if they saw a photo of some
21 or so young boys and girls, some I think as young as five, looking down a
charred body of a victim of mob justice in South Africa (see “Understanding Mob
Justice: Case Study: Khayelitsha” by Face2Face available at www.khayelitsacommission.org.za)
The
press have been apportioned a greater share of responsibility over the rebirth
of elements of classicism (the idea that punishment must match crime and not
age) in society today. In the United Kingdom, media coverage of the story of
the murder on February 12, 1993, of James Bulger, 2, by Jon Venables and Robert
Thompson (both 10) is said to have reversed a number of progressive
developments witnessed in the 1980s on rights of children.
Venables
and Thompson had taken James from a shopping mall where his mother was doing
shopping. They had led him to a place circa 4 km away where they beat him
unconscious before laying him on a railway track, where he was cut in half by a
train.
On
February 20 same year, Venables and Thompson were charged with the murder and
abduction of Bulger. When they stood trial, they were 11 and were tried in an
adult court. On November 24 same year, the court found them guilty of the
crime, and sentenced them to be detained indefinitely at Her Majesty’s
pleasure. The trial Judge, Mr Justice Morland, had recommended that they should
serve a minimum of 8 years, but the Lord Chief Justice recommended 10. Later,
the Home Secretary Michael Howard raised the tariff so they should be eligible
for release after they had served 15 years. Years later in 1997, the House of
Lords ruled that Home Secretary Michael Howard had acted unlawfully in raising
the years to 15. Later, the European Court of Human Rights was to rule that the
two boys had not been given fair trial. In 2000, the Lord Chief Justice of
England and Wales at the time, restored the original eight-year term.
All
these changes entail the Courts and even the Government were reacting to some
pressure, and this pressure came from the public through the conduit of the
media.
The Trend of the Problem in Africa—Is
Africa ‘adultifying’ the Child as well?
On
Tuesday, June 20, this year, www.bbc.com/news/live/world-africa carried a story running under the
headline “Kenyan Primary School closes after pupils beat teachers”. The story
was first carried in The Daily Nation
of Kenya, and it says Kirimon Primary School pupils wielding clubs and sticks
attacked “female staff and three teachers”, leaving them seriously injured. It
says, following this, police arrived and shot in the air. The pupils were
protesting punishments they were given. The
Daily Nation (see “Kirimon Primary School closed after pupils beat
teachers” by Godfrey Oundoh on www.nation.co.ke/news) itself says these pupils were from standard 6, and had gone to school
with clubs and machetes, protesting against being punished by female teachers.
Even teachers, parents and the police who had rushed there to save these
unfortunate teachers were not spared the wrath executed by these rowdy pupils,
described as ‘morans’ in the (Daily
Nation) article. This was by no means the first time the students had gone
on rampage at the school, for “similar incidents had taken place in 2010 and
2013”. The article says that only the year before at another school, head
teacher had been “seriously injured on the head when club-wielding pupils
attacked him”.
That
was Kenya, and the month is June, the year: 2017. Now, let us come back home,
Malawi, the same month of June, the same year: 2017.
In
June this year, teachers in public schools countrywide went on strike over
unpaid leave grants and other outstanding grievances. Pupils, whether angry
that their teachers were not being treated well or frustrated that they were
not attending classes, or even out of mere love for adventure and destruct,
took to the road in uniform to ‘fight for their rights to education’.
According
to “Police shoot primary school pupils on Malawi24.com, dated June 13, 2017, pupils
from HHI, Blantyre Girls,
Ndirande-Kachere, Nyambadwe, and Namiwawa Primary Schools, singing
anti-government chants in protest against a nation-wide teachers’ strike, barricaded
the main road, stoning vehicles and pedestrians.
In
response, the law enforcers had fired teargas to disperse them, justifying the
action by saying the pupils should have
sought permission to conduct the protest. Of course, it was not said how they would seek the same in the first place.
Elsewhere
in the country, and this is according to Henry Chizimba on the Maravi Post (see
“Public Primary School Pupils stage protests over teachers’ strike” on www.maravipost.com/public-primary-school), in the Central Region, “angry
students and parents there had blocked the M1 Road just after Salima Turn-off
towards Ntcheu, (and here they had turned themselves toll collectors), demanding
K1,000 per vehicle to pay their teachers.”
Perhaps
the most shocking part of the June 2017 pupils’ riots in the country was the
beating to near death of a police officer in Lunzu by the rioting
schoolchildren. According to Face of Malawi (see www.faceofmalawi.com), “A police officer stationed at Chileka Police Unit was battling for
his life after being attacked by
primary school learners at Lunzu in the commercial capital Blantyre.” This was
the act of pupils from Nansengwe Primary School and Lunzu Primary School. Perhaps
angered by what the students had done in Lunzu, when learners from Kachanga
Primary School in Chileka blocked the road to Chileka Airport, smashing
vehicles, the police descended on them, beating them mercilessly. A number of
them had been taken to police, kept at Chileka Police Station. To quote The Nation (dated Thursday, June 15
2017), 9 had been arrested in the
Chileka fracas, and suspects
included 2 pupils, to answer on a charge of malicious damage.
Note
that this trend, I mean violence from the classroom pews, is growing by the
day, and no one seems to offer a plausible way our. To understand this, just go a
few years back when Joyce Banda ruled Malawi, and treat yourself to a similar
shock in a story under the headline “Malawi Pupils riot” (The Nation Online on www.mwnation.com dated February 21, 2013). The story
says, “Pupils from selected public primary schools in Malawi’s commercial city,
Blantyre, have gone on the streets protesting against teachers’ boycott of
classes. Teachers in public schools joined the civil servants strike currently
taking place in the country, demanding a 67 percent pay increase.” The story
then gives picture after picture of the pupils in shorts and short sleeve and
school gym dresses, in action—some carrying tree branches, some stones. One
picture shows a huge rock sitting in the highway, apparently pushed there,
definitely by a number of young hands, to block traffic.
That is not all; a
year later, in November 2014, came another one when pupils from Catholic Institute Primary School in
Blantyre left their classrooms, breaking
down the fence onto the road where they threw stones at cars, hitting each
other in the course. According to The Ritchies in Malawi on the
ritchiesinmalawi.blogspot.co.ke in an article “Country in Crisis—Children
rioting”, the rioting soon spread to six more schools and lasted all day. On
age, the article says some of the pupils
were as young as six, the oldest around 14 or so. “The
police—unbelievably—fired shots into the air. I also heard teargas had been
used,” observes The Ritchies in Malawi.
Back
to 2017, this very month of July, and you won’t believe this: nine secondary
school students are arrested in Ntcheu for torching their laboratory, the
school’s staff room and the accounts office.
The
article carrying the story “Lake View Secondary School students arrested for
arson” by Ireen Kayira is available at www.nyasatimes.com. The contents have been corroborated by the Police Public Relations
Officer for the district, Hastings Chigalu who gave their age as ranging from 15 to 18. According to Kayira, Chigalu
said that “the fire (had) completely burned down the said facilities and
materials valued at over K2.9 million." According to the article, the students
were angered by poor diet provision at the school (perhaps this explains why
they had to target the accounts office as well). On the preparations towards the
act, the article says, “The students from form one to form three (had first) organized themselves and went to Njolomole
Trading Centre where they purchased paraffin for their mission”. The
article then gives full names of eight of the nine students, each name with age
attached to it. It ends by saying, “they will appear in court soon to answer
(to) a case of arson which contravenes section 337 of the Penal Code (Cap 7:01
of the Laws of Malawi).”
Recently,
on August 2, 2017, Nyasatimes carried a story under the headline ‘Lilongwe
teen-boy murders brother, removes body parts: Malawi Police arrest him’, by
Pauline Kaude. The story reports an incident in Lilongwe in which Yamikani
Mazunzo, 19, is suspected of committing a murder in the killing of his
biological brother, Saulosi Mazunzo, 13. The article quotes Lilongwe Police
Public Relations Officer, Kingsley Dandaula, saying, “Yamikani was arrested on
July 27 (2017) after being found with
human body parts suspected to have been removed from the body of his younger
brother, Saulosi Mazunzo.” It furthers quotes Dandaula as saying the police
eventually found the remains, a torso, without head, hands and legs.
Although
Yamikani can never be said to be a child (for he is 19), one could easily
generalise we are dealing with a child and we are witnessing scenes grisly in
nature, yet all dangerous exploits of a ‘young’ person.
When
one hears that the suspect eventually led the investigators to the scene of the
murder and another scene where he had initially buried the body and even to a
tree where he was keeping the body parts, one wonders whether our legislation
on children is really the instrument we had wanted to keep our youths from
crime the right way.
A Snapshot of the Law on Children in
Malawi and the dilemma
In
the preceding sections, I put some words in bold. I wanted to highlight what I perceive to be a contradiction between law in a normal setting, and law in a chaotic setting, i.e. whether the waters of law flow in the same rut when the terrain turns violent . As
far as criminal law is concerned, there are terms one is discouraged from using
on or about children, yet such terms have been persistently or consistently
used by both the media and the police themselves when the child showed his or her other face, the ‘adult’ face.
First of all, the law guiding arrest
and other issues about children is provided for by the Child
Care, Protection and Justice Act no 22 of 2010. This law came into force in
July 2010 and it replaced the Children and Young Persons Act, itself enacted in
August, 1969. The Children and Young Persons Act was repealed because it had
provisions which ran counter to provisions of the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of a Child which was adopted and opened for signature on 20th
November, 1989 but came into force on 2nd September, 1990 after it had attained
a required number of member ratification. In other words, after the adoption of
the 1994 Constitution of the Republic of Malawi, the Children and Young Persons
Act was found to be violating some of its liberal provisions.
One area in which the
Children and Young Persons Act had been found wanting lied in its tendency to
execute punishment on a child offender at the expense of reforming him, the
young soul. For example, the Children and Young Persons Act labelled a child as
a juvenile, a term that carries with
it a connotation of delinquency and volatility.
As opposed to the
Children and Young Persons Act, the new Act, i.e. Child Care, Protection and
Justice Act, portrays a child as a special potential that should be guided
through proper means of development in all areas of life: social, cultural,
etc. and not as an object of punishment.
In this way, this new Act is hailed for laying stress on the interest of the
child. Thus, owing to the responsibility and vulnerability of a child, Child
Care, Protection and Justice Act provides that the child has a right to be
heard and recognised.
To achieve this, the new
Act spells out that going through the formal criminal justice system should
only come as a last resort, because there are some effective channels put in
place to safeguard the rights of the child.
The new Act incorporates
the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC). And although the new Act defines a child as a person below the age of
sixteen, it is now common knowledge that the below sixteen should now reflect
the age of eighteen as stipulates the Constitution now (i.e. from 2017). In this way, the new Act is in tandem with
the provision in the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Part I, article 1 which defines a
child thus: “For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human
being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the
child, majority is attained earlier.” This is also in line with the provision
in Part I, article 2 of
the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) which
defines a child as “For the purposes of this Charter, a child means every human
being below the age of 18 years.”
Child Care, Protection
and Justice Act no 22 of 2010 specifically provides for a special court under
section 132. This court is called Child Justice Court and is subordinate to the
High Court of Malawi. To show the importance the new Act attaches to the rights
and issues concerning the child, this Court is presided over by a Professional
Magistrate or a Magistrate of First Grade, and must be supervised by the High
Court. If Magistrate of lower grade is allowed, then he or she will only
preside over minor cases.
What
does the law say about children and criminality in Malawi?
Section 89 of Child Care,
Protection and Justice Act provides for arrest of a child. The section provides
that,
in addition to the provisions of the Criminal
Procedure and Evidence Code or of any other written law relating to the arrest
of a child, a police officer or any person arresting the child or the person
who appears to be a child shall:
a) have due regard to the observance of the
principle of the best interests of the child as well as the general welfare
of the child; and
b) make the arrest in accordance with the
guidelines set out under this Division
The
general principles of this new Act include that certain
terms must never be used for a child in relation to justice or ‘criminal
act’, and of course, that effect of the offence is never beyond the 'punishment' given. This is unlike the case with adults
where a conviction can have additional consequences, for example, one can never be allowed
to run for public office for some time (see section 51(2)(c) of the
Constitution which bars a person convicted by a competent court within the past
seven years in a crime involving dishonesty or moral turpitude from running for
office of Member of Parliament. A similar provision, section 80(7)(c) of the
Constitution, applies word-for-word for election or nomination of President and
Vice-President).
Thus, unlike the case with mature
offenders whose past weighs heavily on them for some time, section 87 (of the Child Care, Justice and Protection Act) on
non-effect of Finding against a Child, provides:
Save as provided in section 105 a finding of
responsibility for an offence against a child shall have no effect whatsoever
against the child for the purposes of any law except in respect only of the
offence for which the child is found responsible and in respect of such
offence, the finding shall elapse upon the child serving the order.
Section
86 of the Child Care, Protection and Justice Act specifically provides as
follows on the mode of Pronouncing a Finding against a Child:
The words “finding of guilty”, “conviction” and
“sentence” shall not be used in respect of any child in proceedings in a
child justice court or any other court,
but in
pronouncing the conviction against the child, the court shall record that the
child is FOUND TO BE RESPONSIBLE for the offence charged and, instead
of sentencing the child, the court shall proceed to MAKE AN ORDER upon such a
finding in accordance with this Act. (Emphasis mine)
As to
the guidelines on the manner of arrest of a child, the Act provides in section
90, among which that:
A police
officer or any person effecting the arrest of a child shall ensure that:
(a)
the child has been informed of his or her rights in
relation to the arrest or detention and the reasons for the arrest in a manner
appropriate to the age and understanding of the child;
(b)
there is no harassment or physical abuse of the
child
(c)
the child is
provided with medical attention where necessary~
(d)
there is no use of handcuffs, except if the
child is handcuffed to the arresting police officer or the person effecting the
arrest
(e)
the child is not mixed with adults
(f)
the child is
provided with nutritious food;
(g)
child is
accompanied by a parent, guardian or appropriate adult as far as it is
practicable to do so;
(h)
a parent,
guardian or appropriate adult is informed immediately after the arrest if such
parent, guardian or appropriate adult was not present at the time of the
arrest;
(i)
in serious
offences, the child is provided with
legal representation; and
In
short, though the Child Care, Protection and Justice Act provides for procedures
which must be followed when arresting or trying children in criminal proceedings
in a court of law, for example, mandatory legal representation when it is a serious case, that the
arresting agent must inform the parent or guarding of the child offender, that
must procure a report of the child offender from the social welfare, must never
use force, the reality on the ground speaks otherwise owing to the emergence of
‘Child-Man’ and ‘Child Woman’, a slippery figure on whom application of the
principles on juvenile; child care and maintenance; and social economic issues
of the child, makes little practical sense. In the words of Cohen (1999) as
cited by Jewkes (2004:89), “no one seems to be sure exactly when childhood is
left behind or when adulthood is achieved.”
In reality,
what happens is that, police officers, in attempt to deal with the sheer huge
volume of violence by ‘children’ have been found to defy provisions of the new
Act. The police are not the only ones on this; the media too have described them with
terms unbecoming for children, and all this happened because both the police
and the media responded to the magnitude of violence and damage the children
executed, violence and damage ‘adult’ in nature. In other words, why should
violence and destruct that are adult in nature be described with sugar-coated words
when their impact to the population is the same as or worse than that from acts by adults?
Perhaps
we had not anticipated that there was going to emerge a ‘Child-Man’ or
‘Child-Woman’ who would choose to defy the definition of a child, that one associated
with innocence and gay. Or perhaps we had not read from examples elsewhere and
debate seriously about how we would handle the complexity of this question in
case it should arise in our midst. As things are, it has arisen in our midst
and we seem to be clutching on straws.
Conclusion
So what is the way forward? Should we say it is high time we revisited these laws to attain some balance by looking at the
mind-boggling question of both crime and punishment, and child rights in a more
sane manner by taking into account our context? Should we say let us intensify civic education so both
the media and the police understand their roles and what it is they should say
or not, or they should do or not when dealing with ‘Child-Man’ or
‘Child-Woman’? Should we package our message to our children the crisp new way, warning them in no ambiguous terms that if they turn themselves into
‘Child-Man’ or ‘Child-Woman’, we shall have no option but to treat them from
the classical perspective where focus will be on the magnitude of the damage
and suffering to the people, rather than merely on their interests as children? Should we begin to tell them children are supposed to do things the children way or else they risk the cane? Should we say the problem has been the manner we have reported crime
involving children? Should we stick to the 2010 legislation (Child Care, Protection and Justice Act no 22 of 2010) with
the dedication of love in its early days or do something about it? Honestly, I
don’t know, but these are questions for us to discuss as a people.
References
The
Constitution of the Republic of Malawi
Child
Care, Protection and Justice Act of 2010
“Country
in Crisis—Children Rioting” Available at www.ritchiesinmalawi.blogspot.co.ke accessed
June 20, 2017
Face2Face.
“Understanding Mob Justice: Case Study: Khayelitsha” Available at www.khayelitsacommission.org.za accessed July 10, 2017
Jewkes,
Yvonne (2004). Media and Crime: Key
Approaches to Criminology. London: SAGE Publications.
“Kenyan
Primary School closes after pupils beat teachers” dated June 20, 2017.
Available at www.bbc.com/news/live/world-africa accessed June 20, 2017.
“Kirimon
Primary School closed after pupils beat teachers” by Godfrey Oundoh. Available
at www.nation.co.ke/news accessed June 20, 2017.
“Lake
View Secondary (School) Students arrested for arson” by Ireen Kayira. Available
at www.nyasatimes.com accessed July 10, 2017.
“Lilongwe
teen-boy murders brother, removes body parts: Malawi Police arrest him” by
Pauline Kaude. Available at www.nyasatimes.com dated August 2, 2017, accessed
September 2, 2017.
“Malawi
Pupils Riot” The Nation Online Available
at www.mwnation.com dated February 21, 2013 accessed June 20, 2017
“Public
Primary School Pupils stage protests over teachers’ strike” by Henry Chizimba.
Available at www.maravipost.com/public-primary-school
accessed June 20,
2017.
“The
Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility continues to divide opinion” at www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017, dated March 15, 2017, accessed July
11, 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment