Is your life worth K500?

By Godfrey Kenneth Beni:

Imagine this. You commence your shift as usual. A machine is devoid of necessary guarding. A trench unexpectedly gives way.

Hazardous fumes permeate an enclosed area. There was no oversight. There was a lack of concern.

By the end of the day, your family receives a call to identify your remains. The employer? According to Section 85 of Occupational Safety, Health and Welfare Act (1997) of the Laws of Malawi, the occupier or owner incurs a penalty of K20,000 and a potential 12-month incarceration.

The legislation stipulates “and”—both penalties are applicable. However, it is exceedingly rare for courts to impose imprisonment on a manager. A financial penalty is levied, payment is processed and operations resume.

In the event that your injury is non-fatal yet debilitating, the same Section 85 is invoked—your lost vision, your damaged hand, your fractured spine is all assigned the identical K20,000 valuation. And if the hazardous condition that led to your demise remains unaddressed—yet another inadequately ventilated pit—Section 83 imposes a daily fine of K500 for the duration of the violation’s continuation.

Allow that to resonate. K500 per day represents the cost established by Parliament for the employer who opts to continue causing you gradual harm. Those figures are indeed accurate. They are enshrined in legislation. The Act was enacted in 1997.

At that time, K20,000 held significant value. It was capable of procuring something of substance. Presently, due to years of inflation and currency depreciation, that amount equates to mere pocket change.

What does K20,000 represent today? It is the cost a half bag of maize. This constitutes the maximum penalty for causing a worker’s demise under Section 85.

Even more concerning, Section 83 prescribes a general penalty of K10,000 for numerous safety infractions—neglecting to secure a hazardous machine, failing to provide a first aid kit, neglecting to uphold fire exit maintenance. K10,000 is less than the monthly airtime allowance of the very manager who neglects to procure safety equipment. The implication for employers is unequivocal: transgressing the law is less costly than compliance.

Let us examine the precise wording of Section 85 together. It asserts: “If any person dies or suffers any bodily injury as a result of the occupier or owner of a workplace having contravened any provision of this Act, the occupier or owner of the workplace shall…be liable to a fine of K20,000 and to imprisonment for twelve months.”

It is noteworthy that imprisonment is theoretically available.

However, Section 85 does not mandate incarceration. It does not prescribe a minimum financial penalty. It does not amplify the consequences for repeat offenders. An employer who causes death of one worker today and another worker in the following year incurs the same K20,000 penalty each instance.

There is no progression. There is no deterrent. There exists solely a low valuation on human life.

What can an employer evade under these absurd penalties? Let us examine the Act in detail. Section 35 mandates the installation of fencing around hazardous machinery.

Failure to comply? Section 83 imposes a penalty of K10,000. Section 42 stipulates that steam boilers must undergo annual inspections.

What happens when one neglects this requirement? K10,000. Section 57 necessitates that fire exits remain unlocked. Secure them? K10,000. Section 58 demands that protective clothing be provided for workers exposed to extreme temperatures, noise or harmful substances.

Provide none? K10,000. Section 33 requires the presence of a first aid kit. Have none available? K10,000. For each of these essential safety provisions, the penalty remains a meager amount.

Moreover, should a worker perish as a consequence, Section 85 escalates the fine to K20,000 – effectively doubling the initial offense.

In the context of this Act, human life is valued at precisely the cost of an additional first aid kit.

Given the ludicrous nature of these penalties, all other deficiencies within the law become imperceptible to employers. Why would any organisation invest in mental health resources for employees experiencing stress or harassment when Section 83 and 85 make no reference to psychological harm? Why implement noise protection measures to prevent irreversible hearing loss when Section 63 merely suggests compliance without imposing penalties? Why confront issues of workplace harassment or violence when such terminology is absent throughout Section 1 to 96?

Why express concern regarding ergonomics or back injuries due to heavy lifting when Section 64 lacks any associated penalty? Furthermore, what of millions of Malawians who are engaged in the informal sector—market vendors, domestic workers and pieceworkers on construction sites?

Section 2 of the Act encompasses “persons employed” to include them; however, Part II mandates the registration of workplaces for regulatory enforcement.

An unregistered workplace incurs a fine of K10,000 under Section 9(10). Once more, this is a trivial amount. Consequently, the majority of informal workers inhabit a legal abyss—devoid of inspections, enforcement or penalties in cases of fatal incidents. If the consequences for causing death were substantial, every one of these deficiencies would suddenly gain significance for employers. They would seek clarification from Parliament.

They would rectify equipment. They would educate personnel. They would exhibit concern. However, currently, under provisions of Section 83 and 85 as they stand, they merely factor the fines into their annual budgets and proceed.

Let us address directly those individuals who possess the authority to bring about an end to this situation. The legislative body enacted this statute in 1997. This body has the capacity to amend it in accordance with Section 95. Each year that elapses with Section 85 remaining unchanged represents a year in which Parliament effectively votes—albeit silently—to maintain the status of Malawian workers as inexpensive and disposable.

It is imperative to pose challenging inquiries to your member of Parliament. When was the last time you advocated for an amendment of Section 83 or Section 85? How many workers must perish under Section 85 before you prioritise safety as an uncompromisable obligation? Do not allow them to evade responsibility through procedural rhetoric or discussions of fiscal limitations.

Amending two sections to increase penalties incurs no expense. It necessitates merely a pen and a commitment to action.

What necessitates immediate alteration is quite straightforward. We are not requesting an instantaneous overhaul of the law. We are seeking a simple amendment to Sections 83 and 85. Increase the penalty in Section 85 to a minimum of K5 million for a first offense resulting in death, with no provision for a mere  fine—mandatory incarceration for no less than two years.

Revise Section 83 to elevate the daily fine for ongoing infractions from K500 to a minimum of K100,000.

Introduce a new subsection to Section 85 imposing personal criminal accountability on directors and managers who knowingly permit hazardous conditions to endure.

Additionally, incorporate a new section—potentially Section 34A—guaranteeing every worker a clear, protected right to refuse unsafe work without apprehension of dismissal or demotion. These proposals are not radical in nature. They are already implemented in Zambia, South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe.

Those nations have determined that the lives of workers hold intrinsic value.

Conversely, Malawi has chosen, and continues to choose, through nearly three decades of inaction, to regard its workers as inexpensive.

Before you proceed, contemplate one final inquiry. If your child, parent or closest friend were to return home from work tomorrow and state, “The employer claims we cannot afford new safety equipment, but it is acceptable because Section 85 only imposes a fine of K20,000 if someone dies”, would you acquiesce to that? Certainly not. You would be outraged. You would demand accountability. You would label it as statutory murder.

So why does the law permit this for you? Why does the State, through Section 83 and 85, appraise your life at the value of a half bag of maize? Is your existence worth merely K500 per day? Parliament’s 29 years of inaction serves as your response.

It is time to shatter that silence. Disseminate this article. Tag your member of Parliament. Advocate for the Occupational Safety, Health and Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 2026. Sufficient graves have been dug at K20,000 each under Section 85. The next one could very well be yours.

Feedback: kennethbeni35@gmail.com