Journal of Social Development in Africa (1993),8,1,11-17 
Juvenile Justice in Zimbabwe:The Need 
for Reform 
EDWIN KASEKE* 
ABSTRACT 
This paper attempts to highlight the weaknesses of the juvenile justice system in 
Zimbabwe and makes a case for law reform. It is the author's contention that whilst 
juvenile justice entails balancing two important considerations, namely the need 
to protect society against criminal behaviour and the need to pay special attention 
to the personal circumstances of the offender with a view to promoting his 
wellbeing, the disposal however is heavily weighed in favour of protecting society 
and thus emphasising retribution and reparation. There is therefore very little in the 
criminal justice system in Zimbabwe that seeks to promote the wellbeing of the 
juvenile offender in any meaningful way. 
Introduction 
Like many other countries, Zimbabwe has developed laws that regulate human 
interaction and thus serve to safeguard individual human rights and to protect 
society generally. These laws are therefore instruments for enforcing societal 
norms which Hoghughi (1983:19) defines as "a set of behavioral expectations, 
rules or guides shared by an identifiable social group". In cases of deviant 
behaviour societal laws tend to emphasise more the protection of society or the 
maintenance of order or stability in society than protecting the rights and welfare 
of individuals who have violated societal norms. This is critical for young 
offenders whose vulnerability makes them deservespecial protection from society. 
There are two main legal instruments which deal with young offenders in 
Zimbabwe, namely the Children's Protection and Adoption Act (Chapter 33) and 
the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Chapter 57). Consequently, there are 
* Principal, School of Social Work, Harare.
12 E Kaseke 
two main institutions that deal with juvenile offenders, namely the juvenile courts 
and the magistrate's courts which administer the Children's Protection and 
Adoption Act and the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act respectively. When 
a juvenile is alleged to have committed an offence the law requires that the matter 
be referred to a probation officer, who then prepares a social inquiry report 
highlighting the socio-economic circumstances of the juvenile. These special 
circumstances of the juvenile are supposed to be taken into consideration in the 
disposal process in an effort to achieve juvenile justice. 
The Weaknesses of the Juvenile Justice System in Zimbabwe 
According to the United Nations (1986:3), "Juvenile justice shall be conceived as 
an integral part of the national development process of each country within a 
comprehensive framework of social justice for all juveniles, thus at the same time, 
contributing to the protection of the young and maintenance of a peaceful order in 
society". The United Nations therefore identifies two major objectives of juvenile 
justice, namely to safeguard the welfare of the juvenile as well as to ensure that 
disposal maintainsabalance between the seriousness of the offence committed and 
the personal circumstances of the offender. This is also aptly expressed by 
Hoghughi (1983:85) who postulates that "the task of the juvenile justice system is 
to setdown and implement a framework of uniformlyjustresponses to wrongdoing 
taking into account individual circumstances". 
The creation of the juvenile court in Zimbabwe must be seen as a 
serious attempt towards the realisation of juvenile justice. Unfortunately, 
Zimbabwe's juvenile justice system seems unable to make the 'uniformly just 
responses' that Hoghughi refers to. Although probation officers prepare social 
inquiry reports highlighting personal circumstances of juvenile offenders, these 
reports are often prepared on the assumption that these juveniles are guilty and 
this seriously undermines the philosophy of juvenile justice. 
Midgley (1975) notes that the juvenile court suffers from an 'identity 
crisis' for it was established as a semi legal and semi welfare institution designed 
to promote juvenile justice. Unfortunately, criminal justice and welfare objectives 
are often contradictory in that criminal justice focuses on retribution or reparation 
whereas welfare objectives focus on rehabilitation or reform. The pursuit of 
criminal justice is therefore incompatible with the pursuit of welfare objectives. 
This conflict is exacerbated by the fact that the criminal code is moulded on the 
liberal-classical theory of crime which according to Midgley (1975) views criminal 
behaviour as emanating from rational decisions and sees punishment as the 
only effective deterrent to crime. This view contrasts sharply with the welfare ideal
Juvenile Justice in Zimbabwe 13 
which is based on the premise that a human being is not a 'finished product' but 
one who is in a continuous process of transformation in order to maintain balance 
between his needs and the demands of his environment so that he functions as a 
fully integrated individual. Thus, juvenile justice cannot be fully realised unless 
this identity crisis is resolved. 
It must also be pointed out that the use of social work in the disposition of 
juvenile delinquency cases has been viewed primarily within the context of social 
control. It is therefore not surprising that a probation officer's intervention has been 
designed to assist the juvenile offenders to adjust to their environment. The 
assumption therefore has always been that there is nothing wrong with the 
environment. Consequently, there has been little attention paid to the social, political 
and economic factors that work against the welfare of young persons. Whilst 
there are instances where probation officers should be used as instruments of social 
control, it should be pointed out that most of the circumstances in which juveniles 
find themselves in require the use of probation officers as instruments of social 
change. The need for social change is based upon the realisation that certain 
structures in society militate against the realisation of human potential, hence the 
need to restructure them in a manner that makes them more responsive to human 
needs. 
The options before the court are limited and include the following: caution/ 
reprimand, suspended sentence, postponed sentence, supervision and committal to 
an institution. Corporal punishment, although discontinued soon after independ 
ence, is now being reinrroduced. This is a retrogressive option which has no place 
in the juvenile justice system. It is disturbing to note that juveniles are remanded 
several times before their cases are finally heard. It is quite common for juvenile 
criminal cases to take several months before they are finally disposed by the courts. 
Such a practice only serves to undermine the freedom of the juvenile and is thus 
a violation of his rights. Committal to institutions is a common form of disposal yet 
institutions are not equipped to make individualised responses to the problems of 
juvenile offenders. Furthermore, the time that juveniles remain in institutions is 
generally uniform (usually three years) and bears little relevance to the nature and 
gravity of the offence and the needs of the juvenile. In fact in this respect adult 
offenders enjoy better justice in that the prison term is generally determined on the 
basis of the gravity of the offence. Because of pressure of work, probation officers 
have tended to recommend those options which require little paper work. Whilst 
the juvenile court in Zimbabwe represents an attempt to embrace the welfare objective, 
the readiness with which probation officers recommend custodial sentences 
is astonishing. 
Zimbabwe needs to introduce new disposition measures particularly as al-
14 E Kaseke 
ternatives to custodial sentences. A disposition measure which has gained wider 
acceptance in Europe is the use of community service orders. This entails ordering 
offenders to perform socially useful duties in the community under the supervision 
of a clearly designated authority. This form of disposition has advantages over 
custodial sentences in that it is less costly and it allows the of fender to remain within 
his family and community. Another disposition measure which the United Nations 
(1986) recommends is the use of intermediate treatment. Intermediate treatment 
entails engaging in therapeutic intervention designed to react to an individual's 
behavioral problems. Thus the juvenile is accorded the opportunity to benefit from 
professional help. One of the most disheartening weaknesses in the juvenile justice 
system is the apparent lack of appreciation of the contribution of probation officers 
in the disposition process. In many instances juvenile cases are disposed of without 
reference to social inquiry reports. Furthermore, social inquiry reports are rarely 
taken seriously by judicial officers thus turning the whole exercise of preparing 
social inquiry reports into a ritual. The courts therefore need to demonstrate that 
social inquiry reports are useful and this would also serve to motivate probation 
officers to be thorough in their social inquiry. The juvenile court tends to be seen 
primarily as a legal institution and consequently the welfare objectives are 
relegated to the periphery. 
The Need for Reform 
There is need for reform in order to transform the juvenile court from a retributive 
institution to a reformative one. Although social work has been given a role in the 
disposition process it does so within parameters defined for it by the criminal law 
and consequently it is handicapped in its ability to promote the wellbeing of the 
offender.
The starting point in the realisation of welfare objectives is a redefinition 
of what constitutes criminal behaviour. It must be pointed out that in Zimbabwe 
there has been a wholesale transference of defitinions of criminal behaviour from 
Western institutions. Consequently such definitions have very little relevance to 
the cultural, political and economic realities of Zimbabwe. It is in this context that 
Hoghughi (1983) calls for decriminalisation of acts currently defined as criminal 
or illegal in order to divert juveniles away from criminal courts. Deviant behaviour 
of children within a defined age group should be seen as a manifestation of 
behavioural problems and such children need to be helped to work themselves out 
of their behavioural problems. 
The determination of the age of criminal responsibility needs to be 
examined to ensure that it is in harmony with the cultural, social and economic
Juvenile Justice in Zimbabwe 15 
circumstances. In certain cultures, children mature more quickly than children in 
other cultures. West(1967:180) observes that "the development of moral ideology 
is not an exclusively individual phenomenon, it may be speeded or retarded 
according to the attitudes of the culture in which the child lives, the social class he 
belongs to and the disciplinary techniques to which he may be subjected". Given 
the circumstances of Zimbabwe and a history of deprivation for the majority of its 
people, it is advisable to put the age of criminal responsibility at no lower than 15 
years and thus ensure that the child has matured enough to be held responsible for 
his actions. The United Nations (1986:5) notes that "in general there is a close 
relationship between the notion of responsibility for delinquent or criminal 
behaviour and other social rights and responsibilities". It is therefore necessary to 
ensure that the age of criminal responsibility is commensurate with the age at which 
major social rights are conferred to individuals in society. 
It is also the contention of this writer that the welfare of the child cannot 
be safeguarded by a system that does not allow for legal representation. Thus, 
juvenile justice cannot be realised unless the juvenile has an inalienable right to 
legal representation in court. The State must provide free legal services to those 
juveniles whose parents or guardians lack the means to engage the services of a 
lawyer. Such a measure would ensure that juvenile offenders from poor families 
are not unduly disadvantaged. 
It has been suggested that one way of avoiding the negative impact of a 
court appearance is to use the diversionary technique which allows for the 
diversion of juveniles away from crime and the criminal courts (Hoghughi 1983). 
Hoghughi views this as a form of community participation in the control and 
treatment of deviant behaviour. The United Nations (1986:7) putting a case for diversion 
pointed out that it "serves to hinder the negative effects of subsequent 
proceedings in juvenile justice administration, for example the stigma of conviction 
and sentence". Midgley (1975) also argues that there is a stigma associated 
with a court appearance and suggests that young offenders should be dealt with 
extra judiciary. It is therefore important to provide remedial and preventive 
services in the community. 
The diversionary technique entails access to a wide range of programmes 
such as community recreational facilities, youth clubs, income generating projects, 
educational services and job placement. The police are also an important part in the 
diversionary process and they should be able to handle minor offences through the 
use of caution and reprimand as deterrents. The use of the detached-worker 
technique provides useful parameters for understanding and helping children with 
behavioural problems and provides scope for general positive influence on the 
children. As West (1967:250) observes "no change is to be expected in morals or
16 E Kaseke 
behaviour until aclose and special contactis built up with some responsible worker 
who can bridge the gap between disgruntled youth and uncomprehending authority". 
The supervision option should be given priority and probation officers 
should work towards strengthening families so that they are able to exercise 
adequatecare and supervision to their children. This is necessary because generally 
parents have the will to provide adequate care and supervision to their children but 
the problems of poverty, ignorance and powerlessness can curtail their ability to 
do so. Apart from counselling, families must be assisted to achieve adequate levels 
of social functioning. 
It would be naive to assume that institutional care will be done away with 
completely. Although there is no significant statistical evidence that points to the 
effectiveness of institutions as reformative agents, institutional care will however 
remain an inseparable part of the disposition process. However, efforts must be 
made to ensure that meaningful care programmes are developed. It is therefore 
important to ensure the effectiveness of institutions as reformative agents. Young 
offenders in institutions must be provided with marketable skills as part of the 
rehabilitation process. As the United Nations (1986:13) notes, "the objective of 
training and treatment of juveniles placed in institutions is to provide care, 
protection, education and vocational skill with a view to assisting them to assume 
socially constructiveandproductive roles in society". This objective is not realised 
because institutions are generally under-resourced by Government and consequently 
these institutions only respond to basic needs such as shelter, food and 
clothing. Government has an obligation to fund probation and training institutions 
adequately in order to enhance their capacities for effecting meaningful rehabilitation. 
Serious attempts must be made to integrate young offenders into the 
community in order to avoid isolating them from the rest of the society. 
It is sad that policy-makers tend to be preoccupied with the maintenance 
of order and stability and that they react swiftly to anything perceived as threatening 
the system. The preoccupation with social control presupposes that there is 
nothing wrong with society hence the expectation that offenders should adjust to 
their environment The juvenile justice system must be social change oriented in 
that it must seek to eliminate or modify the circumstances that lead to crime. 
The disposal of juvenile delinquency cases tend to assume that rehabilitation 
or treatment goals can be achieved by focusing on the juveniles. There appears 
to be little recognition of the fact that some parents or guardians lack adequate parenting 
skills and therefore contribute towards the delinquent behaviour of menchildren. 
Even if the primary focus is on the juvenile, the parents must be effective 
participants in the rehabilitation or treatment process to ensure complimentarity of
Juvenile Justice in Zimbabwe 17 
action between social workers and parents. Parents must be empowered to take 
personal responsibility for the welfare of their children and must be assisted to 
develop and consolidate good parenting skills. One way of ensuring effective participation 
of parents is to establish community centres which are resource centres 
where parents and children converge and are helped to deal with a variety of social 
problems. These community centres are preferable to custodial institutions as they 
are cheap to run and they also reduce the problem of stigmatisation and isolation 
associated with institutional care. 
Conclusion 
This paper has shown that juvenile justice in Zimbabwe will remain an elusive goal 
unless appropriate changes are made on the legal instruments. The areas that 
require changes include the definition of criminal behaviour, age of criminal responsibility, 
legal representation of juveniles and the role of the probation officer 
in the disposal process. It is also important to widen the disposal options to include 
community service and behavioural treatment outside institutional care. 
References 
Hoghughi M (1983) The Delinquent: Directions for Social Control , Burnet 
Books, London. 
Midgley J (1975) Children On Trial: A Study of Juvenile Justice, Nicro, Cape 
Town. 
UnitedNations (1986) Standard Minimum Rules for The Administration of Juvenile 
Justice, United Nations, New York. 
West D J (l967)The Young Offender, Penguin Books, Hammondsworth. 
Zimbabwe, Government of: Children Protection and Adoption Act, (Chapter 33), 
Government Printers,Harare. 
Zimbabwe.Governmentof: Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Chapter 57), 
Government Printers, Harare.