22nd May 2026
ACERWC landmark decision on Maggie’s case in Malawi marks a turning point for children’s rights in Africa
13 min read
On 20 May 2026, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child decided that the Government of Malawi violated several provisions of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child in a case involving the sex trafficking of a 16-year-old girl. Equality Now and People Serving Girls at Risk filed the case in 2022 on behalf of “Maggie,” who was trafficked, sexually exploited, and failed by the justice system. The Committee found that Malawi failed to properly investigate and prosecute those responsible, including police officers accused of abusing Maggie, and concluded that prolonged delays in the legal process compounded her trauma. Malawi has been given 180 days to report on the measures it has taken to implement the decision.
At 16, Maggie* was searching for a way to pay for her school uniform so she could keep going to school. Living in a rural village in Malawi and facing poverty, her dream made her vulnerable to multiple exploitations.
Malawi is a source, transit, and destination country for sex trafficking. Poverty and gender discrimination make girls especially at risk. Maggie and another girl were recruited by a man from their village to work as babysitters in the city.
Upon arrival, the girls were handed over to a bar owner and required to work in the bar. Contrary to the parties’ agreement, the two girls were informed that, in addition to their normal duties at the bar, they were to give ‘sexual favours’ to the bar’s patrons.
The girls escaped and went to the police. Instead of getting help, they faced more hardship. They were not placed in a shelter as required under the Malawi anti-trafficking law, but kept at the Victim Support Unit, where police officers allegedly sexually abused them.
On the day of the court hearing, someone linked to the recruiter came to the police station. With help from the police, they threatened and forced the girls to leave. Maggie went back to her village. The bar owner was released on bail, and the case quickly fell apart.
Our partner, People Serving Girls at Risk (PSGR), heard about the case and tried to get the case file from the police, but was denied. PSGR found the file at the court and, together with the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), Equality Now, and a social worker, eventually found Maggie. The other girl was never found.
The Women Lawyers Association secured the involvement of a Regional Prosecutor, and the case was transferred to the Regional Magistrates’ Court. The first hearing took place in the magistrate’s private office, without a public gallery and the institution of appropriate child safeguarding protocols. From that point, the case was adjourned eleven times, with no indication of when or whether it would ever be finalised.
Traffickers take advantage of young girls and their families by making false promises of education and jobs. Women and girls are moved to cities, other countries, kept in poor conditions, and forced to work in inhuman work circumstances, including bars and rest houses, and where they are also sexually exploited by customers.
Maggie’s experience reflects a broader issue affecting girls and women in Malawi and the region. Women and girls are transported across national borders to Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, and South Africa, even as far as Europe and the Middle East.
On 16 June 2022, PSGR and Equality Now submitted a joint complaint on behalf of Maggie to the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC). The Communication highlighted Malawi’s poor enforcement of anti-trafficking laws, leaving girls like Maggie unprotected from sex trafficking.
The complaint alleged that the Government of Malawi had violated the following articles of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child:
Malawi initially argued the case was inadmissible because local remedies had not been exhausted. The Committee rejected this, finding that the domestic proceedings had been prolonged for more than five years and that the local remedies were not in practice, available or effective. The case was declared admissible at the 41st Ordinary Session of the ACERWC in May 2023.
In their decision delivered on 20th May 2026, the ACERWC found the Republic of Malawi violated the following articles of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child:
Article 27: Failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged perpetrators of sexual exploitation. The Committee found that while the Respondent State had taken initial steps, arresting the suspect and initiating prosecution, the proceedings had stalled for years due to a pattern of repeated, often avoidable adjournments.
Article 29(a): By failing to exercise due diligence in investigating and prosecuting all alleged perpetrators, including the recruiter, and by failing to provide adequate remedies and protection to Maggie as a trafficked child.
Article 16: By failing to investigate and prosecute all alleged perpetrators, including the accused police officers, and by failing to provide adequate remedies. The Committee affirmed that rape and sexual abuse of a child constitute a grave form of inhuman and degrading treatment with devastating and long-lasting consequences.
Articles 15(1) and 15(2)(c): The Committee found that Maggie’s circumstances, deceptive recruitment and forced bar work constituted child labour as defined by the Charter and International Labour Organization Convention No. 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour.
Article 4: On best Interests of the Child, The Committee said that delays lasting more than four years go against the principle of acting in the child’s best interests. Expeditious justice is needed not just for accountability, but also to help victims recover. The State’s inaction made Maggie’s suffering worse.
Article 1: The Committee found that, because of all these violations, Malawi failed in its basic duty to respect, protect, promote, and fulfil the rights outlined in the Charter. Long delays and lack of action went against the Charter’s purpose.
The ruling speaks to a deeply entrenched pattern in which survivors of trafficking and sexual exploitation are not only failed at the moment of the crime, but failed again and again by the systems that should protect them.
Re-victimisation and re-traumatisation are central to this story. Every delay in the case made things harder for Maggie. The Committee’s findings show that these delays are not mere minor issues; they constitute violations by the Government of Malawi.
The decision has the potential to strengthen government accountability across Africa, shaping how states prevent child trafficking, deliver justice for survivors, and build stronger, survivor-centred legal protections across the continent
The government should fully implement the provisions of the Trafficking in Persons Act, 2015 and its subsidiary instruments, particularly the Regulations and Standard Operating Procedures for the Identification and Assistance to Victims of Trafficking in Persons and the National Referral Mechanism, to ensure the protection, rehabilitation, and reintegration of child victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation across all districts in Malawi.
Equality Now and our partner PSGR will work with the Government of Malawi and other relevant stakeholders, every step required by this decision, and we will closely monitor compliance during the 180-day reporting period. This decision must lead to real change, better procedures, justice for perpetrators, and safety for survivors. For Maggie, and for every girl still at risk, we will keep working until the systems meant to protect children truly do.
* Maggie is a pseudonym to protect her identity
21st May 2026
13 min read
Building change together across the MENA region: In conversation with Dima Dabbous
13th May 2026
13 min read
Recognising monetary and non-monetary contributions when dividing matrimonial property is essential for achieving economic justice in Africa
11th May 2026
13 min read
FGM in India: The 2026 Supreme Court hearing explained