South Africa has a reputation as one of the most progressive countries on the African continent when it comes to disability rights.
It has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and adopted laws aimed at protecting the rights of persons with disabilities.
But is it truly a disability-friendly country, especially within its criminal justice system?
This question forms the core of recent research. In it I examined South Africa’s disability-friendliness in the justice system, drawing comparative insights from Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana.
I am a researcher with a focus on policing, criminal justice and social justice.
A pattern emerged across all four countries: solid legislative frameworks exist, but implementation lags badly. There are structural barriers, such as inaccessible infrastructure and lack of transport options. And there are institutional factors, like weak enforcement and inadequate sensitivity training.
Societal stigma also plays a part. This is particularly true for people with invisible disabilities, who are largely overlooked in policy and practice.
I argue that in this technological era, it is not impossible to allocate resources to improve services.
I found that South Africa’s legal framework is more comprehensive and advanced than the other three countries. But all four face similar challenges in practice.
Read more:
South Africa needs to rethink how it measures intellectual and developmental disabilities – what’s lacking
South Africa’s legal framework: progressive yet incomplete
South Africa’s constitution explicitly prohibits discrimination based on disability. It guarantees access to healthcare, education and employment.
Laws such as the Employment Equity Act and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act insist on reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. The White Paper on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2015) outlines a strategy to eliminate barriers.
Despite these progressive laws, the criminal justice system faces practical challenges.
Firstly, many courtrooms, police stations and legal procedures remain physically inaccessible to those with mobility impairments.
Secondly, communication support services such as sign language interpreters and materials in Braille or simplified legal language are not always available. It’s often left to individual officials to arrange help.
Thirdly, there’s still societal stigma and discrimination in the justice system. Some law enforcement, prosecution and judiciary personnel have negative attitudes to disability – especially invisible disabilities such as intellectual, psycho-social, or communication impairments.
People with these disabilities are often misunderstood, denied the help they need, or even excluded from legal proceedings.
Fourth, there is inadequate training for criminal justice personnel on disability rights and needs. As a result many do harm without realising it, undermining trust in the justice system.
Read more:
Disabled people in Africa get a raw deal. What’s been done to fix this
Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana
Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana also have legal frameworks that affirm the rights of people with disabilities.
All have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and have disability laws aimed at fostering inclusion.
Nigeria ratified the convention in 2007 (and the optional protocol in 2010) and passed the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act in 2018. The act prohibits discrimination, mandates accessibility, and establishes a national commission for enforcement.
Kenya ratified the UN convention in 2008, integrating it via Article 2(6) of its 2010 constitution. It has the Persons with Disabilities Act (2003, amended) focusing on inclusion in education, employment and public services.
Ghana ratified the convention and optional protocol in 2012, after signing in 2007. The Persons with Disability Act (Act 715 of 2006) promotes rights to education, health, employment and accessibility.
However, like South Africa, there are gaps in enforcement, accessibility and practical steps to accommodate people with disabilities.
In Nigeria, courthouses and police facilities are often inaccessible. And people with intellectual or mental health disabilities often struggle to understand and communicate within the legal process.
Reports of mistreatment and wrongful detention, especially those with psychosocial disabilities, are not uncommon. A notable case highlighted the denial of proper accommodations for a visually impaired person accused of theft.
Kenya’s Persons with Disabilities Act mandates accessible public buildings, including police stations and courts. Yet many facilities remain inaccessible.
There aren’t enough trained personnel who understand the needs of people with disabilities. And public transport – critical for accessing justice – is not always equipped to carry people with mobility impairments.
Ghana’s Disability Act (2006) provides a strong legal foundation, complemented by ratification of the UN convention.
But many public facilities remain inaccessible after the legislated compliance period.
Police misconduct towards people with disabilities, especially those with mental health conditions, has been documented.
Detention conditions are sometimes inhumane. Many people, particularly with psychosocial disabilities, face wrongful imprisonment without fair legal representation.
In all four countries the justice systems do more to accommodate visible disabilities, including mobility or sensory impairments. They neglect intellectual, psychosocial and communication disabilities. This neglect results in misunderstanding, exclusion and discriminatory outcomes.
Cases such as the tragic deaths in South Africa’s Life Esidimeni mental health crisis and incidents of sexual violence against women with disabilities in Kenya and Nigeria highlight the grave consequences of systemic neglect.
They also underscore the urgent need for reforms not only in legal provisions but also in attitudes, resources and operational practices.
Read more:
Nigeria’s 2027 election can set a model for disability inclusion. Here’s how
Moving forward: key recommendations for South Africa
South Africa’s strengths in disability rights legislation provide a foundation to build a more inclusive criminal justice system. However, closing the gap between law and lived experience requires focused action:
Enforcement and oversight: Regular audits of courts, police stations and correctional facilities for accessibility compliance must be mandated and resourced. Disability-specific expertise within oversight bodies can improve accountability.
Disability training: Ongoing, mandatory training on disability rights is essential. Collaborating with organisations for disabled people ensures training reflects lived realities.
Standard accommodations: Provision of sign language interpreters, accessible legal documents, and trauma-informed procedures must be codified and resourced. This must include invisible disabilities.
Inclusive policy development: Persons with disabilities and their representative organisations must be part of making and monitoring policy.
Public awareness and anti-stigma campaigns: Changing societal attitudes is key to fostering a culture of respect and inclusion.
Regional collaboration: Sharing best practices and harmonising standards can accelerate progress across the continent.
Read more:
Traditional beliefs inform attitudes to disability in Africa. Why it matters
Next steps
Comparing South Africa to Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana reveals common challenges and highlights the need for systemic, coordinated change.
Disability justice is not solely a matter of legal texts. It’s a complex interplay of attitudes, institutional practices and social inclusion. The approach must address physical, psychological, and social barriers to deliver justice for all citizens.
Azwihangwisi Judith Mphidi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Leave a Reply