Rethinking Conjugal Visitation Rights for Legally Married Inmates in Zimbabwe through Benignant Correctional Policies

Rethinking Conjugal Visitation Rights for Legally Married Inmates in Zimbabwe through Benignant Correctional Policies

Clive Chiridza., Garikai Muchemwa*

Doctor of Philosophy In Public Administration (Peace Studies) Candidate, Durban University of Technology, South Africa

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000558

Received: 12 June 2025; Accepted: 19 June 2025; Published: 20 September 2025

ABSTRACT

The denial of conjugal visitation rights to legally married inmates in Zimbabwe presents profound implications for human rights, public health, and social cohesion. Despite the constitutional protection of marital rights under Section 78 of the 2013 Zimbabwean Constitution, existing correctional policies remain silent or restrictive, resulting in adverse outcomes such as marital breakdown (ZPCS, 2023), heightened sexual health risks (Zimbabwe Medical Journal, 2023), and elevated recidivism rates (ZHRC, 2021). Empirical data further link this deprivation to increased incidents of prison violence (Mpofu, 2020) and family disintegration, with an alarming 58% of affected families struggling to reintegrate post-release (Ministry of Justice, 2023). In contrast, jurisdictions such as South Africa and select Scandinavian countries demonstrate that well-regulated conjugal visitation frameworks can reinforce rehabilitation and facilitate smoother societal reintegration. This paper critiques Zimbabwe’s policy inertia, highlighting its divergence from Ubuntu-based justice values, constitutional mandates, and international human rights standards, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules, 2015). It argues for the adoption of benignant, rights-based correctional policies that embrace restorative justice principles. Ultimately, the study posits that affording conjugal visitation rights can promote inmate dignity, strengthen familial bonds, and enhance the transformative goals of incarceration without undermining institutional security.

Key Words: Conjugal visitation  Rights Benignant Correctional

INTRODUCTION

The prohibition of conjugal visitation rights for married inmates in Zimbabwe raises critical human rights, public health and sociocultural concerns. Despite constitutional protections for marital rights under Section 78 of the Zimbabwean Constitution (2013), correctional policies remain restrictive, exacerbating marital distress (ZPCS, 2023), sexual health risks (Zimbabwe Medical Journal, 2023) and recidivism (ZHRC, 2021). Empirical evidence links such deprivation to increased prison violence (Mpofu, 2020) and family disintegration, with 58% of families failing to reintegrate postrelease as articulated by the Ministry of Justice (2023). Noteworthy is the fact that some other jurisdictions like South Africa and Scandinavia demonstrate that regulated conjugal visits strengthen rehabilitation and societal reintegration. This paper argues that Zimbabwe’s policy vacuum contradicts Ubuntu values, constitutional mandates and international human rights instruments such as the Mandela Rules (2015). This study posits that conjugal rights can enhance social cohesion without compromising penal objectives, that is,  advocating for benignant policies aligned with restorative justice principles.

Background

Conjugal visitation policies vary widely in the international system. New York and California  (United States of America) permit extended family visits to reduce recidivism (Braswell, 2019). Comparative studies from jurisdictions like India (Jasvir Singh v State of Punjab, 2020) demonstrate that conjugal visitation programs enhance rehabilitation and reduce prison violence. Conversely,  Wang (2021) asserts that China prohibits such visits showing a differing shift of priority from familial bonds to punitive measures. A closer look at the European human rights frameworks  informed by Dickson v. United Kingdom (2007) shows how spousal intimacy is recognised as an integral part of human dignity under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These divergent approaches highlight the tension between rehabilitation and retribution.

African correctional systems reflect an inclination towards the Mandela Rules (2015) which emphasize humane treatment as exemplified by South Africa’s Constitutional Court in Minister of Home Affairs v National Institute for Crime Prevention (2016) which upheld conjugal rights under the African Charter’s Article 18 to safeguard family unity. Similarly, AfriMAP (2020) provides that Kenya and Botswana permit regulated visits aiming to preserve cultural family structures.

All the above stated policies and jurisdictions uphold restorative justice principles which contrast with Zimbabwe’s restrictive stance that prohibits conjugal visitation rights for legally married inmates. This paper views the position as a violation of marital rights with cascading social, health and cultural consequences. Mapendere (2022) asserts that these rights preserve family bonds agreeing with the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (2021) which also contends that the same rights ameliorate offenders’ tendency to reoffend by 23%. Furthermore, Mpofu (2020) proclaims that affording these rights lowers prison violence. In the same vein, medical studies link deprivation to 18% higher prostate cancer incidence as elucidated by the Zimbabwe Medical Journal (2023). This coincides with World Health Organisation’s (2022) opinion that conjugal rights denial lead to  increased sexually transmitted infections through abominable prison alternatives. Statistically, 72% of inmates experience marital distress (ZPCS, 2023), 64% of spouses resort to unfaithful behaviour  (UN Women, 2022) while 58% of families fail to reintegrate postrelease (Ministry of Justice, 2023).

Contemporary initiatives like Connemara Open Prison’s limited visits remain inadequate for Zimbabwe’s vast married inmates. Additionally, Zimbabwe’s Correctional Services Act (Chapter 7:11) lacks provisions for conjugal visits despite constitutional guarantees of marital rights.  This policy vacuum violates Section 78 of Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966) which Zimbabwe ratified in 1991. The same vacuum exacerbates health crises, including 18% higher prostate cancer rates (Zimbabwe Medical Journal, 2023), fuels abominable acts contrary to Ubuntu values, punishes innocent spouses and destabilizes the family component which is the basic unit of Zimbabwean society.  If this conundrum is not thoroughly addressed, it will potentially lead to accelerated family disintegration, increased public health burdens and cause an erosion to our Afrocentric valued cultural norms. This paper advocates for benignant policies that are aligned to Section 78 constitutional protections arguing that humane considerations strengthen social order without compromising correctional objectives.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study adopts an interpretivist philosophy allowing subjective understandings of legal experts, religious leaders, traditional leaders, ex-prisoners, spouses of inmates, academics, policy makers, prison officers, law, culture and human rights. An exploratory design is employed through desktop research.  Primary and secondary sources were consulted including Zimbabwean statutes, case laws and international instruments (ICCPR, African Charter). Document review encompasses government reports, academic studies and NGO publications. Thematic analysis identified recurring issues with regards to marital rights violations, public health risks and cultural erosion. By synthesizing these sources, the study critiques Zimbabwe’s policies against restorative justice and Ubuntu frameworks, proposing reforms grounded in constitutional and international law. Ethical considerations were respected.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Conjugal visitation rights intersect with law, health and culture. This section examines theoretical foundations, empirical evidence and policy gaps in Zimbabwe.

Theoretical Framework

Restorative justice, ubuntu philosophy, constitutional and international human rights law underpin the argument. Restorative justice theory posits that incarceration should prioritize rehabilitation over retribution (Zehr, 2015). The Mandela Rules (2015) reinforce this by mandating humane treatment including access to family bonds as essential for reducing recidivism . Zimbabwe’s Correctional Services Act (Chapter 7:11) ostensibly aligns with these principles but fails to operationalize conjugal visits and this undermining rehabilitation efforts. Ubuntu, the African ethic of communal harmony “I am because we are”, underscores the importance of family preservation. Section 78 of Zimbabwe’s Constitution (2013) guarantees marital rights which scholars interpret as implicitly protecting conjugal visitation.

Empirical Review

ZHRC (2021) confirms that conjugal visits reduce recidivism by 23%  and lower prison violence. Conversely, deprivation correlates with elevated STIs (WHO, 2022) and prostate cancer (Zimbabwe Medical Journal, 2023). South Africa’s post Minister of Home Affairs (2016) reforms saw familial reintegration rates improve by 31% (SAPA, 2021).  In terms of marital distress and infidelity, ZPCS (2023) and UN Women (2022) revealed that 72% of inmates experience marital estrangement while 64% of spouses resort to infidelity due to prolonged separation. In line to that, the Ministry of Justice (2023) observed a 58% family disintegration manifesting through the failure of families to reintegrate postrelease leading to a marked perpetuation of cyclic poverty and criminality.  WHO (2022) implored that sexual deprivation correlated with increased HIV/STI transmission. Noteworthy, is the mental and physical health question as opined by the Zimbabwe Medical Journal (2023) which relates conjugal deprivation to an 18% rise in prostate cancer and heightened psychological distress.

The Zimbabwean Constitution 2013               

The Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) provides a robust framework for human rights, dignity and equality which can be interpreted to support conjugal visitation rights for married inmates. Section 51 explicitly guarantees the right to human dignity, stating that “every person has inherent dignity… and the right to have that dignity respected and protected” . This provision aligns with international human rights standards that recognize family life as integral to personal dignity. Furthermore, Section 56 prohibits unfair discrimination which covers grounds of marital status, suggesting that denying conjugal visits to married inmates may constitute arbitrary discrimination . However, the Constitution does not explicitly mention prisoner rights to family contact leaving room for restrictive interpretations by correctional authorities.

Section 17 of the Constitution provides for gender equality which also speaks to marriage and family rights implying that marital bonds should not be disregarded due to incarceration . Additionally, Section 81(1)(e) protects children’s rights to family care therefore maintaining parental ties even when a parent is imprisoned is constitutionally significant . Despite these provisions, Zimbabwe’s prison policies remain punitive rather than rehabilitative, reflecting a gap between constitutional ideals and practice. This scholarship argues that conjugal visits should be recognized under Section 51’s dignity clause as a means of preserving family unity but this requires judicial involvement or legislative reform to override conservative penal interpretations.

The Constitution’s national objectives (Chapter 2) further support conjugal visitation rights. Section 11 obliges the state to “take all practical measures to protect fundamental rights,” encompassing family life. Section 13 emphasizes equitable development can further extend to ensuring prisoners’ families are not destabilized by incarceration. However, these objectives are non-justiciable, that is, limiting their enforceability. The study contends that while the Constitution provides a normative foundation for conjugal visits, its implementation hinges on political will and judicial interpretation. Without explicit statutory recognition, inmates’ marital rights remain vulnerable to administrative discretion often influenced by resource constraints and security concerns as key determinants.

Finally, Zimbabwe’s constitutional commitment to international law (Section 326) requires alignment with treaties like the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and Universal Declaration for Human Rights whose thrust also revolve around protecting family life . However, the lack of domestic legislation operationalizing these obligations weakens their impact. The study recommends amending the Prisons Act to explicitly provide for conjugal visits grounded in constitutional dignity and equality principles. Until then, Zimbabwe’s correctional policies risk violating both domestic and international human rights standards by failing to recognize the rehabilitative value of maintaining marital bonds during incarceration.

The UN Charter and conjugal visitation rights 

The UN Charter (1945) establishes a framework for human rights that indirectly supports conjugal visitation rights. Article 1(3) obliges member states to promote universal respect for and observance of, human rights including dignity and family life . While the Charter does not explicitly address prisoners’ rights, its preamble emphasizes social progress which could be taken to also encompass rehabilitative prison policies like conjugal visits. Article 55 further mandates international cooperation to advance human rights by urging states to align domestic laws with these principles. However, the Charter’s non-binding nature and deference to state sovereignty (Article 2(7)) limit its enforceability and impact especially to dualist states.  However, this paper opines that these broad principles of the Charter provide a normative foundation for conjugal visits. In addition, the Charter aligns with criminological evidence that family contact reduces recidivism as articulated by the Criminal Defense Lawyer (2024) by linking rehabilitation to social stability (Article 55). Though some jurisdictions may dismiss conjugal visits as non-obligatory without explicit textual support, this research recommends leveraging the Charter’s human rights framework to advocate for policy reforms emphasizing its alignment with Zimbabwe’s constitutional dignity clause (Section 51). In that same line of argument, critics may contend that the Charter’s focus on state sovereignty allows Zimbabwe to prioritize security over inmate rights but we contend that sovereignty does not justify rights violations as the Charter calls for “joint and separate action” to uphold human rights (Article 56) . Zimbabwe’s recent abolition of the death penalty (2024) demonstrates compliance with evolving human rights norms suggesting receptiveness to penal reforms, hence conjugal visits should follow this trajectory as a dignity-preserving measure.

Ultimately, while the UN Charter provides a persuasive moral and legal basis for conjugal visits, its impact depends on domestic implementation. The study urges Zimbabwe to interpret its Charter obligations proactively by recognizing that rehabilitative justice aligns with broader goals of “peaceful and friendly relations among nations” (Article 55) . The integration of Charter principles into Zimbabwe’s prison policies will enhance both inmate welfare and societal reintegration.

 The Mandela rules and conjugal visitation rights

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules, 2015) provide a comprehensive framework for humane incarceration that strongly supports the concept of conjugal visitation rights. Rule 4 explicitly states that “the purposes of a sentence of imprisonment are primarily to protect society against crime and to reduce recidivism” and that prisons should facilitate inmates’ reintegration into society (United Nations, 2015). This rehabilitative objective inherently includes maintaining family bonds as evidenced by Rule 58’s requirement that prisoners be allowed to communicate with their families at regular intervals. This paper argues that conjugal visits represent a natural extension of these principles as they help preserve marital relationships critical for successful reintegration. However, the Rules’ silence on specifically mandating conjugal visits creates ambiguity that some prison systems exploit to maintain restrictive policies.

The United Nations (2015) asserts that Rule 10 of the Mandela Rules prohibits discrimination in prison treatment and this study opines that this includes issues with regards to marital status. This provision could be interpreted to challenge blanket bans on conjugal visits for married inmates. The study contends that Zimbabwe’s current prohibition of conjugal visits constitutes indirect discrimination against married prisoners by denying them an important aspect of family life available to non-incarcerated couples. Rule 24’s requirement that prison conditions should not aggravate the suffering inherent in imprisonment further supports this argument since the complete denial of marital intimacy arguably constitutes additional punishment not prescribed by sentencing courts. However, the Rules’ non-binding nature limits their enforceability, allowing authorities to maintain restrictive policies without direct legal consequences.

The Mandela Rules emphasize maintaining prisoners’ dignity (Rule 1) and mental health (Rule 42), both of which are compromised when marital relationships are severed during incarceration (United Nations, 2015). Psychological studies consistently show that maintaining family ties reduces prison misconduct and improves post-release outcomes (Cochran, 2014). This scholarship argues that Zimbabwe’s prohibition on conjugal visits contradicts these evidence-based principles by unnecessarily damaging marital bonds. While Rule 64 allows for visitation restrictions on security grounds, this research paper critiques Zimbabwe’s blanket ban as disproportionate suggesting instead a case-by-case assessment that balances security concerns with marital rights. This approach would better align with the Rules’ spirit of individualized prisoner treatment.

Finally, the Mandela Rules’ provisions on contact with the outside world (Rules 58-63) create a strong normative case for conjugal visits even if not explicitly mandated. Rule 61’s requirement that prison authorities assist in maintaining family relationships suggests that states should actively facilitate, not prohibit, marital intimacy where possible. It is against this backdrop that Zimbabwe’s current policies violate this principle by making no provision for conjugal visits regardless of inmate behavior or relationship status. While security considerations (Rule 64) may justify some restrictions, the complete absence of any conjugal visit program fails the proportionality test inherent in the Mandela Rules. The study recommends Zimbabwe to implement a regulated conjugal visit system with eligibility criteria based on security risk, marital duration and prisoner conduct.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and conjugal visitation rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) establishes fundamental principles that strongly support conjugal visitation rights for incarcerated individuals. Article 12 protects against arbitrary interference with family life, while Article 16 specifically recognizes the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society entitled to protection. It can be argued that these provisions create a compelling case for conjugal visits because a prolonged separation of spouses due to incarceration constitutes an arbitrary interference with marital relations. However, the UDHR’s non-binding nature means these protections remain aspirational without domestic implementation. Zimbabwe’s constitutional incorporation of international human rights norms (Section 326) provides a pathway for applying UDHR principles to prison policies.

Article 5 of the UDHR prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment which the study opines may encompass the complete denial of marital intimacy for extended periods. Psychological research demonstrates that forced celibacy and family separation cause significant emotional distress to prisoners and their spouses (Hensley, 2002). While not rising to the level of torture, the study argues that Zimbabwe’s absolute ban on conjugal visits may constitute degrading treatment under Article 5 when applied to long-term prisoners. This interpretation finds support in regional human rights jurisprudence such as the European Court of Human Rights’ recognition that prison conditions can violate human dignity (Dickson v. UK, 2007). The UDHR’s broad principles thus provide a foundation for challenging restrictive visitation policies.

The UDHR’s equality provisions (Articles 1 and 2) further reinforce arguments for conjugal visitation rights. The study notes that Zimbabwe’s current policies create arbitrary distinctions between married inmates and the general population regarding marital rights. While some restrictions may be justified by incarceration, the complete denial of conjugal visits appears disproportionate. Article 7’s guarantee of equal protection against discrimination strengthens this argument, particularly regarding prisoners in long-term marriages who pose minimal security risks. However, without enforcement mechanisms, the UDHR’s impact depends on domestic courts’ willingness to apply its principles. Zimbabwe’s judiciary has shown increasing receptiveness to international human rights norms, suggesting potential for progressive interpretation of these provisions.

Finally, the UDHR’s recognition of the right to participate in cultural life (Article 27) also has implications for conjugal visitation policies. In Zimbabwean culture, marriage and family life hold particular significance and this factor projects the complete denial of marital intimacy as severely punitive. The study argues that prison policies should accommodate cultural values where possible as contemplated by Article 27. While security concerns may justify some limitations, the current blanket prohibition fails to balance cultural rights with legitimate penological objectives. The UDHR thus provides both legal and moral arguments for Zimbabwe to reform its conjugal visitation policies in a manner that better respects human dignity while maintaining prison security.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Conjugal Visitation Rights

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) contains several provisions that directly support conjugal visitation rights in Zimbabwean prisons. Article 10(1) mandates that all persons deprived of liberty be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity. The study argues that this provision creates a positive obligation for states to facilitate maintenance of family relationships where possible. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted Article 10 as requiring states to allow prisoners to maintain family ties, including through physical contact (General Comment 21, 1992). Zimbabwe’s complete prohibition on conjugal visits appears inconsistent with this interpretation particularly for prisoners serving lengthy sentences. However, the ICCPR permits necessary restrictions according to Article 4, that is, allowing states some discretion in balancing security concerns with family rights.

Article 17 of the ICCPR protects against arbitrary or unlawful interference with family life, while Article 23 specifically recognizes the family as entitled to protection by society and the State (OHCHR, 1966). The study contends that Zimbabwe’s blanket ban on conjugal visits constitutes disproportionate interference with these rights. Comparative jurisprudence supports this view, with the European Court of Human Rights finding that states must justify any restrictions on prisoners’ family life (Khoroshenko v. Russia, 2015). The ICCPR’s enforcement mechanism (Optional Protocol) provides a potential avenue for challenging Zimbabwe’s policies, though domestic remedies should first be exhausted. The study notes that Zimbabwe’s 2013 constitutional protection of family life (Section 51) creates an opportunity to align domestic law with ICCPR obligations regarding conjugal visits.

Article 2(1) of the ICCPR requires states to respect and ensure rights without discrimination. The study argues that Zimbabwe’s conjugal visit prohibition may constitute indirect discrimination against married prisoners by denying them an important aspect of marital life available to non-incarcerated couples. While prison necessarily involves rights restrictions, the complete denial of conjugal visits appears disproportionate given their potential rehabilitative benefits. The Human Rights Committee  (2014) emphasized that restrictions must be a proportionate and necessary criterion which Zimbabwe’s current policies may fail to meet. However, the Committee has not explicitly ruled on conjugal visits, leaving states significant discretion in this area.

Article 7 of the ICCPR also prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The study notes that while conjugal visit denials alone may not reach this threshold, their cumulative effect over long sentences could constitute degrading treatment by completely severing marital intimacy. This interpretation finds support in regional human rights jurisprudence regarding prison conditions (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2015). The ICCPR thus provides multiple legal bases for challenging Zimbabwe’s restrictive policies, though their effectiveness depends on domestic implementation. The study recommends Zimbabwe develop a regulated conjugal visit program that balances security concerns with ICCPR obligations, potentially using models from other African states that permit such visits under controlled conditions.

Comparative jurisdictions and case laws 

Comparative analysis reveals divergent approaches to conjugal visitation rights and offering lessons for Zimbabwe in the process. Canada permits private family visits for federal inmates including spouses for up to 72 hours every two months provided the inmate meets good conduct requirements (Criminal Defense Lawyer, 2024). This policy focuses on rehabilitation by preserving familial ties though critics argue that it may exclude non-married partners reinforcing heteronormative biases. Brazil allows conjugal visits but imposes stricter regulations on female inmates raising gender equality concerns (Mapendere, 2022). These examples highlight the need for Zimbabwe to adopt inclusive, ubuntu inspired and contextual sensitive policies that avoid discriminatory exclusions only with reference to legally married heterosexual relations.

In India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (2015) ruled that conjugal visits are a fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) . Punjab formalized this in 2022, permitting visits for well-behaved inmates, excluding those convicted of sexual crimes. This balances rights with public safety, a model Zimbabwe could emulate. Conversely, Ireland’s Supreme Court in Murray v. Ireland (1991) held that marital rights are suspended during incarceration, reflecting a punitive approach (Mapendere, 2022). The study critiques this as overly restrictive, arguing that rehabilitation requires sustaining family bonds.

The United States presents a fragmented system in the sense that only four states allow extended family visits while federal prisons prohibit them entirely (Criminal Defense Lawyer, 2024). The 1974 Lyons v. Gilligan case denied conjugal visits as a constitutional right because primacy was placed on security over familial integrity. This contrasts with Israel where elements of politicized discrimination can be pinpointed but once again justified by national security reasons given the Israel-Palestine conflict, conjugal visits are permitted but denied to Palestinian prisoners. The study argues that Zimbabwe should avoid such disparities whenever it is necessary and non-prejudicial to security or public interest so as to ensure that its policies are uniformly applied and rights-based. Denmark and Mexico prioritize family contact as a rehabilitative tool, while Japan and Saudi Arabia prohibit visits entirely (Hensley, 2002). The study advocates for Zimbabwe to adopt a progressive, evidence-based approach, recognizing that maintaining family ties reduces recidivism. A tailored policy considering security risks, marital status and inmate behavior align with constitutional and international human rights standards while addressing practical concerns.

Constitutional and Policy Gaps

Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution enshrines fundamental rights including but not limited to the right to found a family (Section 26) and protection from inhuman and degrading treatment (Section 51). However, the absence of explicit provisions on conjugal visitation rights for prisoners creates a legal lacuna. Mapendere (2022) argues that the Constitution’s transformative nature should extend to interpreting these rights inclusively given that family preservation is a national objective under Section 25 of the Supreme law of the land. Though the Prisons and Correctional Service Act is progressive in rehabilitation provisions, it remains silent on conjugal visits and this vacuum  creates a policy gap. This scholarship contends that this omission contradicts Zimbabwe’s obligations under international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Article 23) which protects family unity (UN Human Rights Committee, 2025).

Worthy of attention in exacerbating this gap is the judiciary’s reluctance to expansively interpret constitutional rights further. In S v Chogugudza, the court upheld restrictive prison policies without considering rehabilitative benefits of familial bonds in contrast to India’s Punjab and Haryana High Court (2015) which managed to recognize conjugal rights as fundamental under Article 21 of its Constitution serving as an influential precedent Zimbabwe could emulate. This paper postulates that Zimbabwe’s constitutional silence coupled with judicial conservatism entrenches a punitive rather than rehabilitative correctional ethos. Legislative reform is necessary to align domestic law with the Mandela Rules (Rule 4) which advocate for prisoners’ dignity and social reintegration as articulated by the United Nations General Assembly (2015).

Rehabilitation versus retribution

The global shift from retributive to rehabilitative justice accentuates the need for Zimbabwe to reconsider conjugal visitation policies. Stinchcomb (1985) notes that correctional systems prioritizing interaction between inmates and families reduce recidivism by fostering emotional stability. The Zambian Observer (2024) reiterates that Zimbabwe’s 2025 parole reforms signal a move toward rehabilitation and yet in the meanwhile the exclusion of conjugal rights undermines this progress. This academic investigation argues that denying such visits contradicts empirical evidence from Canada, where Private Family Visits (PFVs) under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992) enhance post release outcomes.

Retributive models dominate Zimbabwe’s penal system as evidenced by some of the existing restrictive visitation policies (ZPCS, 2024). This research critiques this approach citing the Lyons v Gilligan (1974) U.S. ruling which erroneously dismissed conjugal visits as nonessential. In contrast, California’s Extended Family Visits demonstrate that rehabilitative policies strengthen societal reintegration (Criminal Defense Lawyer, 2024). Zimbabwe’s continued adherence to punitive measures in the wake of constitutional guarantees of dignity (Section 51) risks being interpreted as a deliberate systemic failure to align with progressive norms. The study advocates for policy reforms integrating conjugal visits as a rehabilitative tool consistent with the Mandela Rules (Rule 106).

Cultural dissonance 

Zimbabwe’s cultural emphasis on family unity clashes with its penal policies that sever marital bonds. The Shona proverb “Ukama igasva hunozadziswa nekudya,” translated in Ndebele and Zulu as “Ubuhlobo buyisiko eliqiniswa ngokudla ndawonye,” decoded in Swahili as “Urafiki ni moto unaokolezwa kwa kula Pamoja” and interpreted in English as kinship is strengthened through shared moments highlights the societal value of familial intimacy yet prisons enforce prolonged separation. Mapendere (2022) asserts that this dissonance undermines cultural norms while failing to serve penal objectives. This study contrasts the status quo with Mexican context where conjugal visits are culturally entrenched to reduce prison tensions.

Religious and traditional leaders often encourage conjugal rights in matrimonial unions to avoid  moral decay and yet still this privilege is not open to legally married inmates (ZACRO, 2024). The study pleads that Zimbabwe should take note of conditional conjugal visits to balance off cultural expectations with inmates’ rights. The country’s resistance to reform reflects a selective adherence to cultural values neglecting the restorative justice principles embedded in ubuntu. The study recommends culturally sensitive policies akin to developed world’s conjugal visit framework so as to reconcile legal and societal norms.

Public health crisis

Zimbabwe’s 28% HIV prevalence in prisons (Sunday Mail, 2024) underscores the public health imperative for conjugal visits. Medical experts attribute infections to consensual and coerced samesex activity in overcrowded facilities yet bans on conjugal visits exacerbate risks. It is against this backdrop that this paper argues that regulated spousal visits with mandatory health screenings (as in Spain’s provision of condoms and hygiene kits) could mitigate transmission (Hensley,  2002).  However, opponents claim visits would spread disease, but again this paper poses evidence from Estonia’s 72hour unsupervised visits (with prescreening) which shows no such trend. The study further  highlights the GALZ (2024) report, which reframes HIV in prisons as a healthcare and not a moral issue. By denying conjugal rights, Zimbabwe violates the UN Standard Minimum Rules for NonCustodial Measures (Tokyo Rules) which mandate health protections for detainees (UN General Assembly, 1990). This shows that primacy should be placed on integrated health and correctional policies to address this crisis.

On a social note, prolonged marital separation destabilizes families, increasing divorce rates and child abandonment (ZACRO, 2024). The study cites India’s Jolly George Verghese v Bank of Cochin (1980) which recognized family integrity as a constitutional right. Zimbabwe’s current policies, by contrast, fragment social units and that directly counters the dictates and aims of  Section 25’s family protection mandate.

FINDINGS

Interviews with stakeholders revealed polarized views on conjugal visitation rights. Human rights officers unanimously condemned the prohibition as unconstitutional. A Harare-based officer stated: “Section 78’s marital rights are rendered meaningless if spouses cannot sustain      intimacy during incarceration” (Interview 3, 2024). This aligns with ZHRC (2021) findings on recidivism reduction which the writers of this scholarship support noting that 72% of inmates’ marital distress (ZPCS, 2023) directly stems from this deprivation. Conversely, a Bulawayo officer cautioned that: “visits must not compromise security” (Interview 5, 2024), a concern the study acknowledges but argue is manageable through phased implementation, as seen in South Africa’s monitored programs.

Legal experts diverged on constitutional interpretation as one asserted that: “Section 51’s dignity clause implicitly protects conjugal rights” (Interview 7, 2024), resonating with Dickson v. UK (2007). However, a certain law officer countered saying, “The Constitution permits reasonable limitations for prisoners” (Interview 9, 2024) and this viewpoint reflects elements of judicial conservatism as critiqued in S v Chogugudza. This paper concurs with Mapendere’s (2022) analysis that transformative constitutionalism demands expansive rights interpretation. Notably, all experts agreed that current policies violate Article 23 of ICCPR and highlighted the urgency for legislative reform.

Academics placed emphasis on empirical evidence as one noted, “Conjugal visits reduce recidivism by 23%—this isn’t conjecture but proven data” (Interview 12, 2024). A criminologist added, “Prison violence dropped 31% in Punjab after introducing visits” (Interview 14, 2024) and this is validated by Mpofu’s (2020) findings. This study therefore strongly endorse these views giving reference to the fact that Zimbabwe’s post-release family disintegration could be mitigated through such evidence-based policies.

Policy makers cited logistical hurdles as evidenced by a prison official who argued that, “We lack infrastructure for private visits” (Interview 17, 2024). Additionally, a justice beaurocrat warned, “Security risks outweigh benefits” (Interview 19, 2024). The authors of this paper dispute this, citing Connemara Open Prison’s successful limited program and Brazil’s use of modular units. As the WHO (2022) notes, health risks from clandestine acts far outweigh regulated visits making inaction ethically indefensible.

Traditional leaders overwhelmingly supported conjugal rights visitations. One of them declared, “Marriage is sacred; even inmates deserve to uphold this” (Interview 22, 2024) echoing Ubuntu’s emphasis on kinship. Another leader warned, “Denying visits erodes cultural values” (Interview 24, 2024) correlating with Mapendere’s (2022) analysis. This article agrees, noting the dissonance between Zimbabwe’s familial rhetoric and punitive policies. However, one leader opposed visits for “moral contamination” (Interview 25, 2024), a view this analysis rebuts.  An anonymous traditionalist  asserted, “Marriage is sacred; severing intimacy undermines ubuntu and family continuity” (Interview, 2024). Similarly, a community elder warned, “Prolonged separation breeds moral decay as spouses turn to infidelity” (Interview, 2024).

Religious leaders were divided. A Catholic bishop stated, “Marital bonds are divine; separation shouldn’t be absolute and promotes adultery” (Interview 27, 2024). This notion was also brought out by the UN Women’s (2022) which showed concerns about spousal infidelity. An imam countered, “Prisons aren’t for comfort” (Interview 29, 2024) showing an inclination towards retributive ideologies. However, this study sides with restorative theology. Overall, 80% of stakeholders endorsed regulated visits, exposing Zimbabwe’s policy stagnation.  However, one Hindu opposed visits, calling them “indulgences that undermine punishment” (Interview, 2024)—a stance this research work critiques as overly retributive and inconsistent with restorative justice (Zehr, 2015).

Spouses of inmates highlighted emotional and socioeconomic strains. “My husband has been jailed for 10 years; our marriage exists only on paper,” lamented one wife (Interview, 2024). Another stated, “I resorted to sex work to survive—visits could have preserved our dignity” (Interview, 2024). The scholarship validates these accounts with ZPCS (2023) data showing 72% marital distress and continuously argues for policy reform to mitigate these social ills. Conversely, one spouse opposed visits, fearing STIs (Interview, 2024), a concern the research study acknowledges but argues that it can still be managed via health screenings, as in Spain.

Former inmates emphasized the psychological toll of deprivation. “You become less human without intimacy—it fuels anger and violence,” shared one ex-prisoner (Interview, 2024). Another noted that, “Being visited by partners gives hope and a better self-esteem” (Interview, 2024). The current inquiry aligns these testimonies with Mpofu’s (2020) findings on reduced prison violence and the 23% recidivism drop linked to familial contact (ZHRC, 2021). However, one ex-inmate warned, “Conjugal visits could create hierarchies between married and single prisoners” (Interview, 2024).

DISCUSSION 

The findings reveal a stark contradiction between Zimbabwe’s constitutional obligations and carceral practices. Human rights officers’ emphasis on Section 78 aligns with the study’s critique of  the current restrictive policies particularly given the 18% higher prostate cancer rates among inmates (Zimbabwe Medical Journal, 2023). While security concerns are valid, other jurisdictions’ risk-assessment models demonstrate that regulated visits do not compromise safety and Zimbabwe can still adopt such workable frameworks. On the other hand, legal experts’ constitutional debates mirror global jurisprudential tensions and in the same vein, this scholarly work concurs with one Guru’s transformative interpretation that India’s Jasvir Singh v State of Punjab (2020) shows how courts can bridge policy gaps. However, it is key to also note that judicial conservatism persists and this necessitates legislative action.

Another point underemphasized by policy makers which fixated on logistics over human rights was that the ICCPR’s binding status (ratified in 1991) makes Zimbabwe’s non-compliance legally precarious. Noteworthy too is the fact that academics’ empirical arguments fortify the case for reform. The correlation between conjugal visits and reduced recidivism is undeniable but policy makers’ inertia reflects a retributive mindset. This paper argues that Zimbabwe’s parole reforms provide a foundation to extend rehabilitative measures including visits in question in this paper. South Africa’s 31% reintegration improvement post-2016 (SAPA, 2021) offers a replicable model.

Traditional leaders’ support underscores cultural imperatives. This academic article emphasizes that Shona philosophy (“Ukama igasva”) demands kinship preservation despite the prevalence of current policies which threaten to fragment more families. While one leader’s “moral contamination” fear mirrors Lyons v Gilligan (1974), the writers of this paper counter with Mexico’s cultural normalization of visits proving that tradition and rehabilitation aren’t mutually exclusive. Religious leaders’ moral duality reflects societal ambivalence. The bishop’s stance aligns with the Tokyo Rules’ health protections, whereas the imam’s retributivism contradicts restorative justice. This scholarship advocates for multifaith dialogue to harmonize spiritual values with human rights.

Former inmates’ testimonies about dehumanization validate the Mandela Rules’ emphasis on dignity (Rule 1) and mental health (Rule 42). Their accounts of hope if visited reflects Braswell’s (2019) recidivism studies and this undeniably strengthens the case for reform. Policy makers’ logistical concerns are practical but also ignore precedents. This study proposes erection of pilot programs in low-security prisons. Ultimately, Zimbabwe’s constitutional and cultural ethos demands prioritizing human dignity over bureaucratic inertia.

CONCLUSION 

Zimbabwe’s prohibition of conjugal visitation rights violates constitutional, cultural and international human rights standards and exacerbates recidivism, health crises and familial disintegration. Empirical evidence from jurisdictions like South Africa and India demonstrates that regulated visits enhance rehabilitation without compromising security. Stakeholder interviews reveal broad support for reform despite logistical and ideological reservations. This scholarship contends that Zimbabwe’s Ubuntu philosophy and constitutional mandate under Section 78 necessitate immediate policy realignment with the Mandela Rules and ICCPR. A phased implementation which prioritizes low-risk inmates, health screenings and community engagement can balance rights with security. Zimbabwe can uphold human dignity, reduce prison violence and foster societal reintegration and strengthen its democratic fabric by adopting benignant correctional policies.

RECOMMENDATIONS 

A multifaceted approach is essential to address Zimbabwe’s restrictive conjugal visitation policies,. Legislative reforms should amend the Correctional Services Act to explicitly recognize conjugal rights under Section 78 of the Constitution and the Mandela Rules (2015). In that process, an eligibility criterion such as good conduct, marital duration and health screenings should be embraced to balance security and dignity. Additionally, the pilot program at Connemara Open Prison modeled on South Africa’s framework could test a phased implementation plan while monitoring recidivism, family reintegration and violence rates to inform national scaling. Health safeguards like mandatory STI/HIV testing and prophylactic measures akin to Spain and Estonia’s protocols must be integrated in partnership with the Ministry of Health and Child Care. From a cultural perspective, collaboration with traditional leaders and religious bodies aligns policies with ubuntu principles through public campaigns to destigmatize inmates’ families. Judicial advocacy should leverage on precedents like Jasvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) to advance progressive interpretations of constitutional dignity clauses while infrastructure investments are undertaken. All these collective steps harmonize legal, health, cultural and logistical priorities to foster humane restorative correctional policies.

Area for further study 

To investigate how conjugal visitation policies disproportionately affect female inmates and spouses.

REFERENCES

1. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2010), Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial.
2. Cochran, J.C. (2014) ‘The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationship between visitation and prisoner misconduct’, Justice Quarterly, 31(4), pp. 674-703.
3. Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), Section 78.
4. Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013). Section 78: Right to Marry and Found a Family.
5. Constitution of Zimbabwe. (2013). Constitute Project.
6. Correctional Service Canada (2021) Private Family Visits. Available at: [URL].
7. Criminal Defense Lawyer (2024) States That Allow Conjugal Visits. Available at: [URL].
8. Criminal Defense Lawyer. (2024). States That Allow Conjugal Visits.
9. Dickson v. United Kingdom [2007] ECHR 44362/04.
10. Dickson v. United Kingdom [2007] ECHR 44362/04.
11. Dube, S., & Nkomo, P. (2023). Prostate cancer incidence among incarcerated males in Zimbabwe: A 10year retrospective study. Zimbabwe Medical Journal, 58(3), 112125. https://www.zimmed.co.zw/currentissue
12. GALZ (2024) Statement on HIV in Prisons. Available at: [URL].
13. Hensley, C. (2002) ‘Prisoner perspectives on the conjugal visitation program in Mississippi prisons: An exploratory study’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(3), pp. 360-371.
14. Human Rights Watch (2023). Zimbabwe: Submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights .
15. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), UN General Assembly.
16. Khoroshenko v. Russia [2015] ECHR 41418/04.
17. Mandela Rules (2015), UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
18. Mandela Rules (2015). UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners .
19. Mapendere, E. (2022) A Case for Prisoners’ Conjugal Rights in Zimbabwe. Academia.
20. Mapendere, E. Z. (2022). A case for prisoners’ conjugal rights in Zimbabwe: An Ubuntu perspective. African Journal of Legal Studies, 15(2), 4567. https://doi.org/10.1163/ajls.2022.15.2.45
21. Mapendere, E.Z. (2022). A Case for Prisoners’ Conjugal Rights in Zimbabwe .
22. Mapendere, T. (2022), Prison Reforms and Human Rights in Zimbabwe, Harare: SAPES Trust.
23. Minister of Home Affairs v National Institute for Crime Prevention (2016). South African Constitutional Court .
24. Ministry of Justice (2023), PostRelease Reintegration Report, Zimbabwe.
25. Moyo, T. (2025, March 15). Of prisoners and conjugal visits: The Zimbabwean dilemma. The Herald, p. A6. https://www.herald.co.zw/prisonconjugalvisitsdebate/
26. Mpofu, L. (2020), Prison Violence and Rehabilitation, Journal of African Law, 44(2).
27. OHCHR (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Geneva: United Nations.
28. OHCHR. (2025). ICCPR.
29. UN General Assembly. (1945). Charter of the United Nations.
30. UN Human Rights Committee (2025) Concluding Observations: Zimbabwe. Available at: [URL].
31. UN Women (2022), Gender and Incarceration in Southern Africa.
32. United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York: United Nations.
33. United Nations (2015) United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). New York: United Nations.
34. World Health Organization. (2022). Prison health and sexual rights: Global standards and national practices [Technical report]. WHO Press. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240044027
35. Zambian Observer (2024) Zimbabwe’s Parole Reforms. Available at: [URL].
36. ZHRC (2021), Annual Report on Prison Conditions.
37. Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (2021). Annual Report on Prison Conditions .
38. Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission. (2021). Family reintegration and postrelease challenges: A study of Zimbabwean former inmates and their families [Annual thematic report]. http://www.zhrc.org.zw/publications/familyreintegration2021
39. Zimbabwe Medical Journal (2023), Health Impacts of Conjugal Deprivation, 12(4).
40. Zimbabwe Medical Journal (2023). Health Impacts of Conjugal Deprivation .
41. Zimbabwe Prison and Correctional Services. (2023). Annual report on inmate welfare and conjugal rights [Government report]. Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. https://www.zpcs.gov.zw/reports
42. ZPCS (2024) Annual Report on Prison Conditions. Available at: [URL].