AC (A MINOR) V AG AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT SUMMARY

High Court of Malawi (Civil Division)
Full Case Name : AC (a minor) v. Mr Jenala Solomon, Blantyre District Council (One Stop Centre at Chileka Health Centre),  Attorney General (Ministry of Health), Human Rights Commission, Centre for Reproductive Health  Civil Cause No. 162 of 2023
Judgment Date: 28 October 2025
Judge: Justice M. A. Tembo

This case involved a 14-year-old girl (“AC”), who became pregnant after being raped. When she sought a safe termination of pregnancy at the One Stop Centre at Chileka Health Centre, the attending clinician (1st Defendant) refused to perform a safe abortion, advising her instead to continue with the pregnancy. She was later granted the procedure at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital. AC, through her father, sued the defendants for violation of her sexual and reproductive health rights under the Gender Equality Act (GEA), and that there was no consideration of AC’s mental health in the circumstances.

The Court found that:

1. The 1st Defendant breached sections 19(1)(a), 19(2), and 20(1)(d) of the GEA by denying AC access to a safe abortion and by failing to provide her with the necessary information to make an informed decision. The Court emphasized that under the GEA, every person has the right to access reproductive health services and to choose whether or not to have a child. The judge clarified that “preservation of life” under Section 243 of the Penal Code must be interpreted purposively to include not only physical but also mental health, particularly for victims of sexual violence.The Court held that AC, as a child impregnated through defilement, was automatically entitled to access safe abortion services.
2. The 2nd Defendant (Blantyre District Council) was held vicariously liable for the acts of the 1st Defendant as his employer.
3. The 3rd Defendant (Minister of Health) was found in breach of its obligations under the GEA for failing to amend and implement clear, binding guidelines that ensure child victims of sexual violence can access legal termination of pregnancy services, as mandated under the Standards and Guidelines for Post-Abortion Care (2020).
4. The 4th Defendant (Human Rights Commission) was also found in breach of its statutory duties under sections 8 and 9(2)(c) of the GEA and sections 13(1)(d) and (e) of the Human Rights Commission Act, for failing to take proactive steps to enforce the Act or to recommend necessary legislative reforms to protect pregnant minors who are victims of sexual abuse.

Outcome:
The Court ruled that AC had proven her case and was entitled to all declarations and reliefs sought, including damages and costs, which are to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed within 14 days.

In summary, all defendants were found liable and the Court granted ALL declaratory and compensatory reliefs sought.

Key Legal Takeaways:

• Victims of sexual violence, especially minors, fall within the scope of the right to safe abortion under the Gender Equality Act.
• The mental health of the victim must be considered as part of “preserving life” under the Penal Code.
• State institutions, including the Ministry of Health and Human Rights Commission, have affirmative obligations to ensure reproductive health rights are implemented in practice.