Mandatory Sentencing Vis a Vis Judicial Discretion: A Critique on Zambia’s Approach to Criminal Justice

Abstract

This study is on the effects that mandatory sentencing has on judicial discretion in Zambia. This study primarily delved into the aspect of mandatory minimum sentences, vis-a-vis the amount of exercisable judicial discretion left to the Courts as a result of the mandatory minimum sentence. The purpose of this study was to shed light on challenges and consequences that have been present as well as new and potentially new challenges and consequences. Ultimately investigating the legal framework, the advantages and disadvantages, the effects that are present in Zambia, as well as drawing the pathway to resolving the issue from other countries. This study's chosen methodology was as follows; the study takes a qualitative approach, making use of both primary and secondary data such as reports, statutes and books. The study drew substantially from case law and compared Zambia's legal system to that of other countries. Ultimately, the findings of the study were that in comparison to other jurisdictions the Zambian legal framework does not have adequate leeway that enhances and promotes the exercise of judicial discretion by the Courts.