An explosive episode recently aired by controversial journalist DJ Sparks, Andile Sola, has reignited public outrage over the blurry and potentially criminal line between s@x work and human trafficking in Zimbabwe.
The episode features Andile Sola, infamously known as Queen Pin, who openly admitted to organising young women for s@x work. But while some call it entrepreneurship or agency, others, including legal analysts and faith leaders, are calling it exactly what the law says it might be: trafficking.
Understanding Human Trafficking in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Trafficking in Persons Act defines trafficking beyond the Hollywood-style narratives of abduction and chains. It includes:
“The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion… for the purpose of exploitation.”
Importantly, the act also includes scenarios where no coercion is present, but a person is voluntarily transported for an unlawful purpose. This is a crucial point in the current debate.
Are the Girls Coerced or Willing Participants?
Much of the public outrage hinges on this: Are the young women being forced into s@x work? Or are they going willingly?
Many argue that these young women, often dubbed “ama2k”, are acting out of free will, part of a modern culture that is difficult for older generations to fully grasp. But consent doesn’t automatically neutralise the offence, especially when the end purpose is illegal.
While s@x work in private is not criminalised in Zimbabwe, publicly soliciting s@x, advertising, or operating as a pimp or broker is illegal. If Queen Pin is recruiting, transporting, and organising these women for paid s@x and especially if she profits from this, it ticks more than one box under the Trafficking in Persons Act.
Rabbi’s Comment and the Growing Moral Debate
A respected rabbi recently weighed in, warning of a growing culture of commodification of women under the guise of empowerment. His concern aligns with those asking deeper questions: Is this freedom or a new form of exploitation disguised as agency?
This issue has divided public opinion sharply, with some defending the women’s right to make money however they choose, while others highlight the exploitative systems enabling such choices.
The Legal and Ethical Grey Zone
What makes this case tricky is that the law does not only punish coercive trafficking. It also criminalises voluntary movement for an illegal purpose.
Queen Pin’s operations, especially if they involve transport, organising appointments, or collecting a cut, may well qualify as trafficking for an unlawful purpose.
Even without violence or force, organising s@x work publicly and profiting from it can breach trafficking laws. And when young, economically vulnerable women are involved, it edges close to systemic exploitation, even if no one is physically forced.
