FOR most people, attending court as a survivor of abuse or gender-based violence is scary.
This is because the court atmosphere has been traditionally associated with crime and violence.
It is, therefore, not surprising that a person whose rights have been violated will be scared.
The concept of a survivor-centred approach in the criminal justice system came about in response to the recognition that traditional colonial legal systems often neglected the relevant needs of victims of crime.
In Zimbabwe, this approach developed gradually from the 1990s through the introduction of victim friendly initiatives, resulting in better protection of vulnerable survivors of sexual and other forms of gender-based violence.
Understanding the history
Zimbabwe began the reform process after growing concern about the treatment of vulnerable witnesses within the criminal justice system.
Prior to this, survivors of sexual violence had to make do with often intimidating court environments.
- Zim headed for a political dead heat in 2023
- Record breaker Mpofu revisits difficult upbringing
- Tendo Electronics eyes Africa after TelOne deal
- Record breaker Mpofu revisits difficult upbringing
Keep Reading
Following extensive consultation and engagements, the ministry responsible for justice and court systems began introducing changes to accommodate the needs of vulnerable justice system users.
These included the amendment of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act to allow for closed-circuit testimony and use of special interpreters.
Institutional changes included the introduction of specialised courts, a special police unit and focused health services.
These have been documented as best practice measures aimed at reducing secondary trauma to survivors.
Furthermore, the changes created a multi-sectoral support system involving all relevant players.
The difference it made from the colonial criminal justice system
The introduction of survivor-centred reforms represented a departure from the colonial criminal justice system inherited from British rule.
The colonial legal framework was based on English law, processes and procedures that did not do much to make survivors feel comfortable.
The criminal trial was essentially a contest between the State and the perpetrator of abuse with the victim playing a minimal role.
The trial procedure pitted an often-traumatised victim against an offender or his lawyer.
Survivors of sexual offences were required to testify in open court, frequently in the presence of the offender, which was at times deeply traumatising for victims.
Moreover, the system lacked mechanisms to protect children, who often struggled to understand court procedures and articulate their experiences effectively.
Transformation under the victim friendly system
Procedural reforms have also played an important role.
Courts now permit vulnerable witnesses to testify through intermediaries who help to translate complex legal questions to simple language.
Closed-circuit television testimony helps to minimise the psychological impact of court proceedings.
In addition, the Multi-Sectoral Protocol on the Management of Sexual Abuse and Violence (2019) has improved coordination among all the relevant justice system players by establishing clear referral pathways, roles and standard operating procedures.
This co-ordinated framework has enhanced case management.
Donor support from organisations such as Unicef, UNFPA, UN Women (through the Spotlight Initiative) and other local partners has helped to strengthen the system by funding friendly court infrastructure, training justice sector personnel, supporting psychosocial services for survivors and supporting one stop centres.
Zimbabwe recently put in place new legal measures that allow survivors of sexual violence to give evidence in different forms of communication, such as writing, signs or other communication methods when a survivor cannot testify orally.
These provisions recognise that trauma, disability or age may affect a survivor’s ability to testify in traditional ways and ensure their evidence can still be heard and understood by the court.
In addition, the law strengthens substantive protection by clearly criminalising sexual conduct with children, removing consent as a defence and introducing expansive protection for children.
Collectively, these reforms reflect emerging international best practice and prioritise survivor dignity, reduce secondary trauma and ensure that survivors are adequately supported throughout the justice process.
Comparison with South Africa
Zimbabwe’s victim-centred reforms share similarities with South Africa, where the criminal justice system has also adopted measures to support victims of sexual violence.
Both countries provide multi-sectoral co-operation among justice institutions through the Thuthuzela Care Centres, a single facility model, that has reduced service fragmentation, resulting in successful prosecutions.
South Africa’s specialised Sexual Offences Courts have trained prosecutors and court personnel who focus exclusively on cases involving sexual violence.
Additionally, the implementation of broader survivor empowerment programmes and witness protection mechanisms is best practice.
Best practice survivor-centred approaches from other countries
Several other countries have implemented progressive survivor-centred justice approaches that have improved survivor protection, reporting and prosecution outcomes.
For example, Iceland and Nordic countries pioneered the Barnahus (Children’s House) model, which provides a single, child-friendly location for police interviews, medical examinations, counselling and legal procedures, reducing the need for children to repeatedly recount traumatic experiences.
This model has significantly improved conviction rates in abuse cases.
In New Zealand, the justice system has incorporated restorative justice programmes that allow victims to contribute to decisions about accountability and healing.
In the United Kingdom, the introduction of independent sexual violence advisers (ISVAs) ensures that survivors receive continuous support throughout the legal processes.
Another best practice is the private run Children’s Advisory Centres in the US.
These progressive models significantly enhance the effectiveness of survivor-centred criminal justice systems.
Drawing on international best practices, Zimbabwe could adopt a Hybrid Integrated Survivor Support Model that strengthens the existing Victim Friendly System.
The model would also include dedicated victim support professionals, similar to the United Kingdom’s ISVAs and the Barnahus model.
In addition, restorative justice options, adapted from New Zealand practice and aligned with Afrocentric and community-based justice traditions, cad be incorporated in some cases to support reparative justice.
Conclusion
The adoption of the survivor-centred approach in Zimbabwe marked a significant movement from the colonial criminal justice system which overlooked the needs of survivors.
Ultimately, while the Victim Friendly System has improved access to justice for many survivors, further reforms will ensure that the criminal justice process is genuinely supportive, accessible and responsive to the needs of all survivors.
- Chinga Govhati is a child protection advocate and can be contacted on +263773287898.
- Pamellah Musimwa is a child rights lawyer and can be contacted +263777000542
