DPP EXPLAINS WHY DOG OWNERS IN MAULING CASE WON’T FACE PROSECUTION

 THE office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has explained why the owners of dogs that mauled a 14-year-old boy, leaving him disabled, will not be prosecuted.

According to the DPP, the decision was reached because the injured minor unlawfully entered a private commercial property after 22:00 hours and stole car rearview mirrors before being attacked by the dogs.

The DPP’s office added that the dogs, which were confirmed to be vaccinated, acted instinctively and there was no evidence to suggest that the owner commanded them to attack the intruder.

“The attack by the dogs was a direct and tragic consequence of the victim’s own criminal actions in breaching the secured property,” the statement issued by the National Prosecutions Authority (NPA) reads in part.

This clarification follows public concerns and queries over why the DPP decided not to prosecute the owners of the dogs that recently mauled a teenage boy, leaving him disfigured.

The DPP’s office said it had taken note of recent media reports concerning the tragic incident of January 11, 2024, which resulted in severe injuries to the boy.

“In the interest of transparency, we wish to provide a clear account of the legal reasoning behind the decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the dog owners and to address related legal considerations.

“The Zambia Police Service diligently investigated this incident and submitted a docket to our office for legal guidance,” the statement reads.

It further states that the role of the DPP is to dispassionately assess the evidence presented by investigators against the specific elements required to prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

“This duty must be carried out impartially, irrespective of the distressing nature of the case,” the statement reads.

After a thorough review of all the evidence, the DPP determined that the threshold for a successful prosecution for the offence of reckless and negligent acts under Section 237 of the Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia, was not met.

The decision was based on key findings, including that the property owners had implemented significant security measures, such as a perimeter wall, electric fence, and a designated dog house where the animals were routinely confined and released only around 22:00 hours to patrol the premises under the supervision of security guards.

“The dogs were also confirmed to be fully vaccinated,” the statement adds.

Investigations further revealed that the boy intentionally entered the private commercial property at night by scaling the perimeter wall to gain unauthorised access.

“Once inside, he committed the offence of theft, contrary to Section 272 of the Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia, by stealing motor vehicle rearview mirrors from the premises before he was spotted by the guard dogs. In this case, the dogs acted instinctively, and there is no evidence that the owner commanded or encouraged the attack.

“Under our laws, an individual who commits such unlawful acts is classified as a trespasser and a perpetrator,” the DPP stated.

The statement added that while the outcome was undeniably tragic, the DPP’s mandate is to apply the law based on evidence.

“To initiate a prosecution against the dog owners where the evidentiary foundation for a conviction is absent would be a misuse of the court’s process. Similarly, to prosecute the child offender after such a life-altering injury would be unduly punitive and lack any constructive purpose,” the statement reads.

The DPP’s office further said the decision not to prosecute the case was a necessary and legally sound conclusion based on a rigorous examination of all available facts and a balanced exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

(Mwebantu, Thursday, 30th October, 2025)