The Constitutional Court is on Wednesday going to rule whether the laws which make it a criminal offence for someone who would have infected his or her partner with HIV are constitutional or not.
The argument was bought by the Zimbabwe Lawyers for human Rights last year after the conviction of two Zimbabwean women by the courts two years ago for deliberately infecting their partners, and is based on the constitutionality of the law versus the new constitution promulgated in 2013. The Constitutional Court is on Wednesday going to rule whether the laws which make it a criminal offence for someone who would have infected his or her partner with HIV are constitutional or not.
The argument was brought by the Zimbabwe Lawyers for human Rights last year after the conviction of two Zimbabwean women by the courts two years ago for deliberately infecting their partners preside over the constitutionality of the law versus the new constitution promulgated just before the 2013 general elections.
The law in context states that any person knowing that he or she is infected with HIV, or realizing that there is a real risk or possibility that he or she is infected with HIV intentionally does anything or permits the doing of anything which he or she knows will infect or does anything which he or she realizes involves a real risk or possibility of infecting another person with HIV, shall be guilty of deliberate transmission of HIV whether or not he or she is married to that person, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years.
In its (ZLHR) arguments, their case is that there is no scientific evidence to prove the source of HIV infection which could be brought before the courts when two parties are being tried.
The rights lobby group said the conviction of such persons were done on who first reports accusing another as opposed to basing on evidence which is not easy to come by.
Three lawyers Tabani Mpofu,Lizwe Jamela and David Hofisi have been delegated by the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human rights to argue the case.
4 Replies to “‘HIV Spreaders’ Should Not Be Imprisoned, Lawyers Take Govt to Court”
Comments are closed.
Whatever the law says, HIV spreaders should not be imprisoned unless the victim is a spouse, a rape victim, or a child of the culprit. Each person is responsible for their own health. If you have condomless sex with someone whose status you do not know, you should not come to court and complain.
There is never a case for complaint after catching any STI from anyone other that your own spouse, as spouses are vested with implicit trust which means they can have condomless sex. The rest if self inflicted and should not waste the courts or prison’s time.
Whatever the law says, HIV spreaders should not be imprisoned unless the victim is a spouse, a rape victim, or a child of the culprit. Each person is responsible for their own health. If you have condomless sex with someone whose status you do not know, you should not come to court and complain.
There is never a case for complaint after catching any STI from anyone other that your own spouse, as spouses are vested with implicit trust which means they can have condomless sex. The rest if self inflicted and should not waste the courts or prison’s time.
You are misrepresenting. The arguments are that the law as is is too wide and vague and results in people who are innocent being charged and the first to the police station who reports a case is not prosecuted and can actually be the guilty part.
You are misrepresenting. The arguments are that the law as is is too wide and vague and results in people who are innocent being charged and the first to the police station who reports a case is not prosecuted and can actually be the guilty part.