Mpika | January 2026 – Can a drug cartridge, medical records, and a neighbour’s word secure a conviction? On February 9, 2026, the Mpika Subordinate Court will decide, delivering a much anticipated ruling on the NPA’s “victimless prosecution” strategy in a case where the victim disappeared and her family sought to withdraw charges.

The case directly mirrors the recent directive of the learned Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mr. Gilbert A. Phiri SC, who has declared a zero-tolerance stance on the withdrawal of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) cases, emphasising evidence-based prosecutions that proceed even without victim testimony.

Violet Katongo and Dorcus Chikwanda face one count of supplying drugs to procure an abortion, contrary to Section 153 of the Penal Code, chapter 87 of the Laws, in a matter being heard before Honourable Magistrate Andrew Longa Kasongo.

The State alleges that the minor was impregnated by the son and brother of the accused, respectively.

After the victim’s mother attempted to withdraw the case, the prosecution, led by Mpika District State Advocate Mr. Michael Mukololo, rejected the request, aligning with the DPP’s national policy, and instead built its argument on a chain of tangible and testimonial evidence laid before the court.

The prosecution’s case rests on four pillars of evidence, presented through four witnesses after the minor disappeared:

1. The Drug Cartridge – An empty medicine container was recovered and presented in court as a key exhibit. The prosecution contends it contained the abortion-inducing drugs administered to the minor.
2. Medical and Laboratory Documentation – A hospital medical report confirming that an abortion had taken place was submitted. Crucially, a laboratory report from the day the accused allegedly took the minor for testing was also produced, confirming her pregnancy at the material time.
3. Eyewitness Testimony – A neighbour testified to finding the minor in severe abdominal distress. The witness told the court that the minor explicitly stated she had been given drugs “to remove the pregnancy.” The prosecution argues this was a spontaneous declaration made in the immediate aftermath of the event.
4. Testimony of the Victim’s Mother – While she later sought to withdraw the case, the victim’s mother initially provided a statement detailing how she took her daughter to the hospital after being alerted by the neighbour, where the abortion was medically confirmed.

The State is relying on legal precedent, citing cases such as R v Turner (1975) and The People v Kenneth Taguta, to argue that the minor’s statements to the neighbour and her mother are admissible as “res gestae” evidence – spoken in the heat of the moment and intrinsically linked to the alleged crime.

This evidentiary approach is the operational backbone of the learned DPP’s recently announced policy. “This approach allows cases to be presented in court without the victim testifying, and it sees matters reach their logical conclusion, thereby holding perpetrators accountable,” the learned DPP stated during the launch of the Spotlight Initiative 2.0.

The Mpika case exemplifies this shift. Faced with a missing key witness and familial pressure to drop charges, the State adjusted its focus to forensics, material evidence, and the accounts of other witnesses to construct its narrative.

Legal experts note that the 9 February ruling will be closely scrutinised. A decision to place the accused on their defence will confirm the strength of evidence-based prosecution in Zambia’s courts. Conversely, a dismissal could signal the practical challenges of such an approach, especially where witness cooperation is vital.

Either way, the ruling will provide the first major judicial insight into the real-world application of the DPP’s stringent “no withdrawal” policy, setting a precedent for how GBV cases might be prosecuted in Zambia when victims are silenced, coerced, or disappear.