The government increased victim protection efforts. The government identified 79 trafficking victims in 2022, compared with 42 victims identified in 2021. Of the 79 victims identified, traffickers exploited 28 victims in sex trafficking, 32 victims in labor trafficking, and 19 victims for unspecified forms of trafficking; 18 were adult males, 25 were adult females, and 36 were children; 35 were foreign victims. The government reported referring all victims to care compared with 42 victims referred in the previous reporting period. The government also identified 1,204 potential trafficking victims, which it reportedly referred to services. Due to conflation of trafficking with other crimes, victim identification data may have included migrant smuggling cases. NGOs identified an additional 15 trafficking victims. NGOs and international organizations intercepted 82 potential trafficking victims through transit monitoring at bus stations and border crossings. As reported in previous years, child victims continued to be exploited in commercial sex venues, even after reunification with their families, as dire economic circumstances led families to return victims to such establishments. The government did not report any action taken against the alleged traffickers.
In partnership with an international organization, the government updated the existing NRM and continued to disseminate a standard victim identification form to guide front-line officials on proactive victim identification. With support from an international organization, the government increased training for front-line officials on the NRM and reported proactively screening detained migrants for trafficking and referring victims to care. When victims were identified, the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) received victim referrals, conducted assessments, and facilitated victims’ access to services provided by NGOs, international organizations, and the government. The Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS), in partnership with an international donor, opened a new shelter for trafficking victims, bringing the total number of available shelters for victims to five; however, shelter facilities remained largely unused. Shelter staff did not permit victims, including adults, to leave unchaperoned. For child trafficking victims, DSW provided victims care in government-operated orphanages or coordinated with NGO-operated shelters. Additionally, MCDSS operated one 40-person shelter in Luapula Province and other shelters in Central and Western Provinces; these shelters were commonly designated for survivors of GBV or child abuse but were also available to trafficking victims. Most shelters only assisted women and children, but some accommodated adult male victims of trafficking. The government allocated 282,846 kwacha ($15,630) to support five government-operated shelters for trafficking victims, the same as in previous years; this amount was not sufficient to fully staff shelters and provide basic necessities for victims. Shelter staff continued to lack trauma-informed training, reliable transportation, and sufficient resources. With assistance from an international organization, the government developed standard operating procedures (SOPs) and guidelines for shelters; however, the guidelines awaited final approval by the MHA for the second consecutive year. The government partnered with NGOs and international organizations to offer routine assistance to both foreign and domestic victims, including shelter, basic needs, medical care, counseling, repatriation assistance, and other services. Foreign victims were entitled to the same benefits as Zambian victims. The government developed guidelines to operationalize the Anti-Human Trafficking Fund as designated by law; however, the guidelines remained pending approval for the second consecutive year.
The newly amended anti-trafficking law included a provision establishing that trafficking victims cannot be held criminally liable for unlawful acts they committed as a “direct or indirect result of being trafficked;” however, observers and government officials reported authorities penalized some trafficking victims for such acts, particularly relating to immigration violations, due to lack of resources, knowledge gaps, and efforts to increase prosecutions. To ensure victims’ participation in court proceedings, observers and government officials reported law enforcement detained some victims, sometimes requiring victims to testify against their will. In response to these reports, the government mandated use of its NRM for all front-line officials under jurisdiction of the MHA, including police and immigration, to refer victims to care when identified. The government did not consistently conduct trafficking screenings for adult migrants who were detained in prisons and deported for immigration violations, which may have included trafficking victims. The government also did not consistently screen detained unaccompanied migrant children for trafficking, who were ostensibly separated from adults in prisons; however, observers reported lax security did not always enforce the separation requirement. Government officials expressed difficulty in obtaining interpreters to conduct trafficking screenings for Congolese, Somali, and Ethiopian migrants detained for immigration violations. Particularly in districts with scarce resources, the government permitted NGOs and representatives from foreign governments to provide legal assistance, interpretation, and advocate on behalf of detained migrants, which may have included potential victims. The government did not report the number of trafficking victims identified among those detained for immigration violations.
The government did not report the number of victims who cooperated with law enforcement on investigations and prosecutions of traffickers, which was not required to access protection services. The government provided options for victims to testify via video or written statements, children testified separately from traffickers in Child Friendly Courts, and the government assisted in protecting victims’ identities. The government provided legal assistance through legal aid organizations for victim-witnesses, including foreign nationals, through a witness management fund by the National Prosecution Authority. The DOI could provide temporary immigration status to foreign victims in accordance with the 2008 trafficking law, which was dependent on cooperation with law enforcement, and offered a legal alternative to the removal of victims to countries where they may face hardship or retribution; however, the government did not report the number of victims who received immigration remedies during the reporting period. The government reported interpretation services were provided free of charge to victims; however, the lack of interpreters available continued to be a barrier to providing timely and comprehensive care for victims, particularly outside of Lusaka. The government did not report any court orders of restitution for trafficking victims during the reporting period.