Botswana’s draconian Public Health Bill approved by Parliament, BONELA will challenge it as unconstitutional once President signs into law (Update 3)

Update: April 5th 2013

Very disappointing news from Botswana. The Public Health Bill – including all of its draconian provisions on HIV – has been approved by Parliament.

BONELA issued this press release last week just prior to the vote.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MPs) ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN SAVE US FROM THE PROPOSED PUBLIC HEALTH BILL…..IT IS IN THEIR HANDS

We knew that the Public Health Bill will be back in Parliament for further debate. However, we had anticipated that the Ministry of Health would heed calls made by stakeholders such as BONELA, UNAIDS, WHO, SALC, AIDS Alliance, ARASA, Ditshwanelo and other concerned Batswana and make amendments to the bill, particularly on the controversial, offensive and invasive provisions.

To our utter shock, the Ministry of Health intends to make no changes to the bill at all; even with the benefit of information on best practices availed to them. This to us; is a clear case of indifference and a deliberate plan to violate people’s rights.

BONELA and its stakeholders have done all that is possible to raise awareness, especially to the general public who would be affected by this law. It is now up to MPs to propose and vote on the amendments.

If MPs fail or decide not to discharge that constitutional mandate, as concerned stakeholders, we would know that our MPs are happy to see people’s rights being violated-that they are happy to see Batswana being tested for HIV without their consent, happy to give doctors sole mandates on deciding when and what to do with patients without consultations.

We would also know that MPs by failing to do their duty are happy to see litigants in court pleading not to be tested for HIV because their government want them to. Moreover, we would know that our MPs are happy to place responsibilities of sexual matters ONLY on those who are HIV positive by agreeing with forceful disclosure to all potential sexual partners by people living with HIV even if they are using protection.

Lastly, our MPs will be happy to see that whoever seeks dental services is required to do an HIV test before such services are meted.

It is therefore, in the hands of MPs to exercise their power to propose and vote for a sound Public Health bill. It is in your hands……

According to this APA piece, published on Wednesday, the Bill was approved by parliament. BONELA is now waiting for Botswana President, Ian Khama, to sign the Bill into law before it can approach the High Court to challenge the offending clauses as unconstitutional.

Botswana’s Health Minister, Dr John Seakgosing on Tuesday said the Public Health Bill, which seeks among other things, to isolate people who infect others with sexually-transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS, while knowing their status, will apply to Members of Parliament, cabinet ministers and even the president.

He explained to APA in an interview that the Bill that was passed last week, will not apply only to ordinary citizens.

According to Seakgosing, if the president, ministers and legislators are found to be infecting others carelessly, they will be brought before the courts where the magistrate will take a decision to isolate them from the public.

While he explained that the Bill does not seek to empower medical practitioners to force clients to undergo tests, but Clause 104 (3) (b) provides that “the director or a person authorised by him may where necessary and reasonable, require a person or a category of persons to undergo an HIV test”. Clause 104 (4) then provides that “where a person required to undergo a test under Clause 104 (3) refuses to do so, the director may apply to a magistrate for an order requiring that person to undergo the test.”

But some HIV/AIDS activists are up in arms saying the Bill will reverse the gains achieved in fighting the HIV scourge as it encourages discrimination.

AIDS advocacy group Botswana Network on Ethics Law and HIV/AIDS (BONELA) says it intends to take the government to court over the Public Health Bill that has been approved by parliament.

BONELA director, Uyapo Ndadi, said in an interview that his organisation is only waiting for President Ian Khama to sign the Bill into law before it can approach the high court to challenge certain clauses in it as they are unconstitutional.

Update: December 14th 2012

The Public Health Hill has been shelved until next February thanks to the advocacy against the “outrageous” HIV-related provisions (see below) spearheaded by the Botswana Network on Ethics, Law and HIV/AIDS (BONELA). That’s the good news this morning, according to Uyapo Ndadi, BONELA’s Executive Director:

I am happy to inform you that the outrageous Public Health Bill has been shelved, at least until next year February when parliament resumes business. Our collective advocacy has helped to thwart cabinet’s plans to have the bill passed into law during this sitting.

I am happy to further inform you that UNAIDS has also written to our government to remove the draconian provisions from the bill.

It is now hoped that in the intervening months, BONELA and other human rights advocates will add to the pressure created by UNAIDS to make the Government see that in order to save face internationally, they must either substantially rewrite the Bill or drop it completely.

Update: December 11th

Disappointing and worrying news today from BONELA:

Parliament yesterday voted in favour of passing the Bill from the 2nd reading stage to the Committee stage. Amendments to the Bill may be made at the Committee stage. It means that our efforts to get the Minister to withdraw the bill for lack of consultation have failed. Our hope now is that Parliament will remove from the bill the draconian parts of it.

A report in BOPA daily news highlights the debate yesterday

The Member of Parliament for Lobatse, Mr Nehemiah Modubule says he does not support the Public Health Bill in its current state. Debating the bill in parliament on Thursday, Mr Modubule said it should first be put into perspective, as some of the clauses are contradictory. He argued that they would have a hard time trying to amend such clauses if the bill passes to the committee stage. He noted that consultations with some stakeholders such as Botswana Network on Law and AIDS (BONELA) were not done. Furthermore, he said, the minister of health should have done justice to the bill by deferring it for further consultations, as some clauses touch on customs and practices of Batswana.

In his contribution, the MP for Moshupa, Mr Mokgweetsi Masisi supported the bill, arguing that prevention and control of diseases is not peculiar to Botswana, more so that new communicable diseases continue to emerge. Mr Masisi said the bill conforms to international practices in terms of public health, adding that consultations had been done and they should not delay the bill.

Original post: December 10th

On Friday, Botswana’s Parliament debated the proposed Public Health Bill which contains some shocking and regressive HIV-related provisions that, according to a strongly-worded press release from the Botswana Network on Ethics, Law and HIV/AIDS (BONELA) “have no place in a democratic and modern day Botswana..that are counter-productive, discriminatory, unconstitutional and barbaric.”

The relevant passages of the Bill are available to download here (Botswana Public Health Bill 2012.pdf, 1.4MB)

Some of the most problematic provisions as highlighted by BONELA, are below.

Clause 104 (3) b – empowering medical practitioners to force their patients to undergo HIV tests without their consent.

The Director, or any person authorised by him or her, may, where necessary and reasonable require a person or a category of persons to undergo an HIV test.

Clause 105 (2) b – empowering doctors to test patients without their knowledge.

A medical practitioner responsible for the treatment of a person may conduct an HIV test without the consent of that person where —  (b) the medical practitioner believes that such a test is clinically necessary or desirable in the interests of that person.

Clause 109 (3) – allowing surgeons or dentists to test a patient for HIV before deciding on whether to carry out a non-urgent procedure.

Where, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, nurse or dental practitioner, the surgical or dental procedure is not urgently required in respect of a person, the medical practitioner, nurse or dental practitioner may require the person to undergo an HIV test before carrying out that procedure.

Clause 116 (1) – mandating HIV disclosure to all potential sexual partners or care giver and allowing prosecution for placing another at risk.

A person who is aware of being infected with HIV or is carrying and is aware of carrying HIV antibodies shall — (a) take all reasonable measures and precautions to prevent the transmission of HIV to others; (b) inform, in advance, any sexual contact or care giver or person with whom sharp instruments are shared, of that fact; and (c) not place another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV.

Clause 116 (7)  empowering doctors to disclose their patient’s HIV status to their sexual partner without their consent.

A medical practitioner who is responsible for the treatment of a person and who becomes aware that the person has not, after a reasonable opportunity [disclosed their HIV status] may, after consultation with an approved specialist medical practitioner, inform any sexual contact or care giver of that person of the HIV or HIV antibody status of that person.

Clause 116 (9-12) –  limiting the right to freedom of movement for people with HIV without sufficient legal checks and balances.

(9) The Director or any officer representing the Director may, in writing, apply to a magistrate for an order where the Director reasonably believes that a person infected with HIV — (a) is not complying with this Part; b) knowingly or recklessly places another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV without the knowledge of that person of the infected person’s HIV status; or (c) is likely to continue the behaviour referred to in paragraph (b).  (10) For the purpose of subsection (9), a magistrate may make any or all of the following orders — (a) an order that the person infected with HIV undergo such medical and psychological assessment as the Minister determines; (b) an order imposing restrictions on the person for a period not exceeding 28 days; or (c) an order requiring that the person be isolated and detained by a person, at a place and in the manner specified in the order for a period not exceeding 28 days. (11) In making an order in respect of a person under subsection (10), a magistrate shall take into account the following matters — (a) whether, arid by what method, the person transmitted HIV; (b) the seriousness of the risk of the person infecting other persons; (c) the past behaviour and likely future behaviour of the person; and (d) any other matter the magistrate considers relevant. (12) The Director may, in writing, apply to a magistrate to renew an order made under subsection (10) for a further period or periods not exceeding 28 days.

According to BONELA, the Bill appeared from out of the blue without any public consultation.

We are concerned by government attitude and tendency of introducing Bills in Parliament and debating them before engaging all stakeholders, including the civil society and Batswana as a whole. We know that the Botswana Health Professions Council is not aware of this Bill for they have not been consulted on it. As custodians of health we expect them to be intimately involved as this Bill is going to affect the way they work. This bill is significant in the lives of all of us and we therefore call upon [Minister of Health] Reverend Dr. John G.N. Seakgosing [contactable via phone on +267313632521] to withdraw it and if he refuses to, we urge MPs to reject it.

Although the Bill was discussed last Friday – and a copy of the Bill obtained only then – Parliament adjourned before voting, but will continue this week.  Action, therefore, is urgently required.

 

Advocates Urge Repeal of U.S. Laws Criminalizing HIV

Advocates Urge Repeal of U.S. Laws Criminalizing HIV The producer of a new documentary about criminalizing those with HIV summed up such laws’ effects at a public showing of the film. “These horrendous punishments are vastly disproportionate to the crime,” said the film’s producer, Sero Project founder Sean Strub.

US: Todd Heywood's analytical history of how the US developed HIV-specific criminal statutes and why there's now a movement to modernise or repeal these laws

In the late fall of 1988, state lawmakers and representatives from major insurance and pharmaceutical companies were hard at work addressing the looming AIDS crisis for the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative-leaning think tank that produces state-based business-friendly model legislation.

Four Stories: The Effects of HIV Criminalization on Sex and Intimacy

“As a trans woman living with HIV, I’m always worried that if I don’t disclose to my partner before we even approach the bedroom that they’ll turn around and charge me with a crime. When you have to tell a potential partner that you’re trans and poz, there’s always a fear that they will use that information to make your life hell.

4 States With Scientifically Unsound Laws Criminalizing HIV

1. Missouri: It is unlawful for any individual knowingly infected with HIV to bite another person. The law also specifically prohibits the use of a condom as a defense in a nondisclosure case. 2. Michigan: It is a felony, with a four-year jail sentence, for those who know they are HIV-positive to engage in “sexual penetration, however slight” without first disclosing that status to a partner.

Law Enforcement and HIV Policy Groups Release Fact Sheet for Police on HIV Risks “Spit Does Not Transmit” Intended to Reduce Officer Anxiety and Needless “Exposure” Prosecutions (Press Release)

The Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP), the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) and the American Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (AAPA) today released a new fact sheet that they hope will bring law enforcement officers up to speed on the real risks of HIV that they face from possible exposure to the bodily fluids of those they police.

According to these organizations, every year people with HIV are the subject of felony criminal charges ranging from aggravated assault to intentional HIV transmission following police encounters in which defendants are accused of spitting at or biting police, usually in the course of a stop or arrest for a minor incident, such as disorderly conduct. Although the risk of transmission ranges from zero to far less than 1%, and there are no known cases of HIV transmission to a police or corrections officer from such events, spit and bite incidents have resulted in new or enhanced criminal charges and sentences of more than thirty years in prison. The fact sheet, Spit Does Not Transmit, provides current information, complete with citations to published experts, about transmission risks from non-sexual contact with a person’s bodily fluids.

“Accurate information is critical to law enforcement and corrections officers – In our line of work, our lives and the lives of others depend on it. Studies show just how much misinformation about HIV is transmitted among people in every part of the country, and every profession,” said Joseph Akers, Jr. NOBLE Interim Executive Director. “The nature of law enforcement is such that we encounter people from all walks of life with all sorts of problems. We are regularly exposed to risks; that’s the nature of the job.  It is important for officer safety that we understand the facts about HIV transmission, and it is also important that an arrest not turn into a more serious set of charges simply because the arrestee has HIV.”

Statistics show that of all the cases brought against people with HIV for so-called exposure offenses, twenty-five percent (25%) arise from incidents in which spitting or biting has been alleged, and almost all of these have been brought by law enforcement or corrections employees.  Law reform efforts that would eliminate the ability to prosecute people on the basis of their HIV or other disease status when they act without the intent or real ability to transmit – as is generally always the case with spitting and biting – are under discussion in multiple states, said Rashida Richardson, a staff attorney with CHLP.

“It is a waste of time and money to devote public safety resources to conduct that, while distasteful, poses no risk of harm,” observed David LaBahn, Executive Director of the American Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.  “Too many prosecutions are based on outdated notions of what HIV is and how it is transmitted. Information is the antidote, and this is a good place to start.”

[Although focused on the US, this factsheet will be useful anywhere police are inadequately trained on HIV-related risks during occupational exposure, including discarded needles.]

The fact sheet is available below and on The Center for HIV Law and Policy’s website.

Spit Does Not Transmit, The Center for HIV Law and Policy, the National Organization of Black Law Enforceme…

Uganda: As second reading of controversial national HIV law awaits, activists hope regional HIV law – with no HIV criminal statute – will take precedence

Activists in Uganda are seeing an opportunity to shoot down the country’s controversial HIV Bill that criminalises transmission of the Aids virus and enforces mandatory testing, after President Yoweri Museveni signed a more liberal one proposed by the East African Community.  They want Uganda’s parliament to incorporate into law the EAC HIV and Aids Prevention Bill (EAC HIV Bill) that President Museveni signed last week. More than 30 NGOs in Uganda find the national law that is awaiting a second reading in parliament offensive, saying that it could exacerbate the spread of HIV. Laws passed by the East African Legislative Assembly take precedence over national laws. President Museveni can also prevail upon the Ugandan parliament to drop the bill.

US: Activists highlight problematic HIV criminalisation statutes in Georgia, Louisiana and beyond

Robert Suttle met the man through mutual friends. There was no romantic interest at first, but on a New Year’s Eve after a night of partying in Louisiana, the two decided to spend the night together. One thing led to another. Suttle told the man he was HIV positive.

UK: NAT letter to Guardian highlighting that police fears over occupational HIV exposure are unwarranted

A police officer in your article ( All in a night’s work, G2, 27 March) states getting HIV or hepatitis from uncapped needles as his biggest fear. Of all the risks police officers face, some highlighted elsewhere in the article, the risk of HIV infection is by far the lowest.

US: Well-meaning bill to repeal Maryland's HIV-specific criminal law may do more harm than good, advocates warn

A Maryland lawmaker and a handful of local advocates have started the course to repeal the state’s HIV-specific criminal law, and if other states’ efforts are any indication, Maryland’s path will likely be a long and winding one. Maryland Del. Shirley Nathan-Pulliam (D-Baltimore County) decided last week to withdraw a short-lived bill that would have repealed a state law that makes it a misdemeanor crime – punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and/or three years in prison – for a person who has HIV to “knowingly transfer or attempt to transfer” the virus to another person. Nathan-Pulliam said she withdrew the bill after hearing from HIV advocates who feared a straight repeal of the state law might do more harm than good.