The Constitutional Court has set aside judgement on whether the laws which make it a criminal offence for someone said to have infected his or her partner with HIV are constitutional or not.
Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku leading a nine(9) member bench heard the case which was brought by the Zimbabwe Lawyers for human Rights urging the laws were not only vague but also unconstitutional.
ZLHR brought the cases after the conviction of two women on charges of wilfully infecting their partners with HIV.
Advocate Thabani Mpofu instructed by David Hofisi from the ZLHR submitted that there was no scientific evidence to support that “he or she was indeed infected HIV by his or her partner”.
Mpofu urged that the laws should clearly explain how the court would arrive at a conclusion that the accused person would have been intentionally and or wilfully infected his or her partner with HIV without scientific evidence.
Representing the state was Editor Mavuto from the Prosecutor General’s Office who said the contested laws were enacted with the aim of protecting and safeguarding public health.
He however agreed that there were no scientific evidence to prove that the accused person would have intentionally infected his or her partner adding that ‘actions’ and the ‘conduct’ of the accused person when the infection happened could lead to prosecution.
The laws which ZLHR wants to be repealed state that any person knowing that he or she is infected with HIV, or realizing that there is a real risk or possibility that he or she is infected with HIV,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.
PICTURES:
4 Replies to “HIV Spreading Ruling: Con Court Reserves Judgement”
Comments are closed.
If you can scientifically proof that he/she was responsible for your infection yes you can prosecute but is there scientific evidence? Whether its done in America, japan does not make it right if ypu cannot prove the infected part was clean before that. A family wanted mombes from a mukuwasha saying he infected their daughter with HIV and she died yet these guys had met in a bar when she was selling sex. it started as a regular prostitute and ended up as married couples but woman family accused the husband of infecting her with HIV as if all the men she sold sex to had been tested negative.
If you can scientifically proof that he/she was responsible for your infection yes you can prosecute but is there scientific evidence? Whether its done in America, japan does not make it right if ypu cannot prove the infected part was clean before that. A family wanted mombes from a mukuwasha saying he infected their daughter with HIV and she died yet these guys had met in a bar when she was selling sex. it started as a regular prostitute and ended up as married couples but woman family accused the husband of infecting her with HIV as if all the men she sold sex to had been tested negative.
There must be something wrong with these lawyers, instead of coming up with ideas as to how this piece of legislation should be worded, they want it repealed altogether. Such laws now exist in many developed countries and are they saying these developed countries got it wrong. It’s surprising how they talk of science as if they are scientists, I know to be a lawyer you don’t need to be proficient in science, very soon they will be saying there is no such thing like passive smoking vachiti who told you kuti hutsi ihwohwo hwakabvapafodya yaputwa. Why are they called sexually transmitted deseases???
There must be something wrong with these lawyers, instead of coming up with ideas as to how this piece of legislation should be worded, they want it repealed altogether. Such laws now exist in many developed countries and are they saying these developed countries got it wrong. It’s surprising how they talk of science as if they are scientists, I know to be a lawyer you don’t need to be proficient in science, very soon they will be saying there is no such thing like passive smoking vachiti who told you kuti hutsi ihwohwo hwakabvapafodya yaputwa. Why are they called sexually transmitted deseases???