HIV-Positive Nurse Tried by Media
Published on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 21:43
The implications of this case are far-reaching: the Namubiru case appears to be the first in Uganda’s courts dealing directly with HIV exposure and transmission. Efforts to criminalize HIV transmission, and the failure of both the media and the prosecutors office to act responsibly, set a dangerous precedent and could have grave consequences for the fundamental rights of people living with HIV and AIDS in Uganda and beyond.
Case Summary Rosemary Namubiru, 64, a nurse with 35 years of experience, was working at the Victoria Medical Centre in Kampala, Uganda. On January 7, 2014, Namubiru was attempting to give an injection to an ill 2-year-old patient. Neither she nor the mother could calm the distraught child. With the child writhing and kicking, the needle accidentally pricked Namubiru’s finger; she stopped what she was doing, washed and bandaged her pricked finger, and returned to the child. She was eventually able to administer the injection.
Uncertain about whether the same needle was used throughout, the mother became concerned about the possibility that her child had been exposed to HIV. It was confirmed that Namubiru is HIV-positive and is on anti-retroviral drugs. The child was given an HIV test; the results were negative. A precautionary 2-month post-exposure prophylaxis regimen was initiated, after which the child will be re-tested.
Rosemary Namubiru was arrested in front of a bevy of journalists. She was held by the Criminal Investigations Department for four days before her first appearance in court. She was charged with attempted murder, which carries a sentence of up to life imprisonment, and remanded to Luzira National Prison to await trial. On February 7, 2014, she was denied bail and returned to prison to await trial. Minutes before the trail began on February 11, 2014, the prosecutor announced the charge would be changed to “negligent act likely to spread infection of disease.” With this new charge in place, the prosecutor began to call its witnesses, and the trial is ongoing.
Trial by media Since the moment of her arrest, Rosemary Namubiru has been found guilty in the court of public opinion. Even though research has shown that the likelihood of HIV transmission from a needle puncture is miniscule––only 0.32% of those exposed to HIV through a subcutaneous puncture became infected[1]––Namubiru has been singled out and vilified in the press because of her HIV-positive status.
Here are just a few of the libelous accusations that appeared in the media reports in the immediate aftermath of her arrest:
- An article with the headline “Killer nurse charged with attempted murder” went on to accuse Namubiru of “maliciously infecting her patients, mainly the children with her HIV positive blood.”[2]
- Another claimed that she “drew her own HIV-infected blood and injected it into a two-year old child.”[3]
- Shortly after Namubiru’s arrest, one article stated that police were “investigating allegations that the woman has been engaging in the act for a pretty long time.”[4]
- An article that appeared in The Africa Report speculated about Namubiru’s mental state, calling her “the fiendish nurse” and claiming “the baby’s incessant cries drove her mad.”[5]
- One journalist opined that “as police struggled to find an appropriate charge to punish such an evil act, it became clearer that our laws are inadequate to cover such emerging but deadly crimes.”[6]
- An editorial about the case declared, “The majority of our doctors and nurses may well be great professionals, but it’s also true that among them are many people who do not harbour good intentions for one reason or another. These could be inherently evil-minded, bitter or mentally unstable.”[7]
A miscarriage of justice Even before the trial began, serious questions surfaced regarding Rosemary Namubiru’s ability to receive a fair hearing. From the spectacle of her arrest—recorded by media who were clearly alerted in advance–-to the baseless original charge of attempted murder, and the rush to trial before the defense could prepare, it is clear that this is a sensationalized case.
Throughout the process, there have been numerous violations of Rosemary Namubiru’s rights:
- According to Section 23(4)(b) of the Ugandan constitution, an accused person can only be held for up to 48 hours before a hearing. Namubiru was held for four days before her first court appearance.
- The prosecution argued against granting bail, stating that Namubiru poses a grave risk to the public, even though there is no evidence of intent to commit any crime.
- Namubiru had no lawyer present when police extracted a statement from her; she was unable to access legal counsel until she had been in detention for a week.
- The Prosecutor claimed on February 7, 2014 that the State had completed its investigation and was ready to proceed to trial. Namubiru’s lawyers had not yet seen the State’s evidence, and were informed that they would receive the file the day before the trial was slated to begin. Section 28 of Uganda’s constitution guarantees that every person charged with a criminal offence shall “be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his or her defence.”
HIV advocates fear that the Namubiru case could set a dangerous precedent, in terms of both the criminalization of HIV transmission and the treatment of people living with HIV and AIDS.
Many advocates worry that the case could be used to justify passing the proposed HIV Prevention and AIDS Control Bill 2010. The bill includes two overly-broad sections on the criminalization of HIV, as well as a number of other troubling provisions that would restrict the rights of persons living with HIV and AIDS. If the government moves to legislate the criminalization of HIV, specific groups—including pregnant women, who are easily identified within the chain of transmission—could be targeted for criminal charges. (For more on the proposed bill and its implications, please visit www.uganet.org).
AIDS-Free World unequivocally disagrees with the notion of having a separate criminal code for people who are HIV-positive. If a person attempts to do bodily harm to another, regardless of the means, the existing laws should apply. By creating laws that specifically criminalize HIV transmission, the courts place the emphasis on the person, rather than the crime.
The media frenzy created by this case illustrates the degree to which HIV stigma still exists. Many advocates warn that the introduction of HIV-specific laws would be a dramatic setback in efforts to eliminate discrimination, particularly in the workplace.
Expert global guidance on the criminalization of HIV transmission
In its landmark report, the Global Commission on HIV and the Law recommended that:[8] “To ensure an effective, sustainable response to HIV that is consistent with human rights obligations:
2.1. Countries must not enact laws that explicitly criminalise HIV…exposure. Where such laws exist, they are counterproductive and must be repealed.
2.2. Law enforcement authorities must not prosecute people in cases of HIV…exposure where no intentional or malicious HIV transmission has been proven to take place.
2.4. Countries may legitimately prosecute HIV transmission that was both actual and intentional, using general criminal law, but such prosecutions should be pursued with care and require a high standard of evidence and proof.
—–
Rosemary Namubiru is being supported by several advocacy and human rights organizations, including the International Community of Women Living with HIV, Eastern Africa (ICWEA), Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET), The National Forum of People Living with HIV in Uganda and AIDS-Free World (NAFOPHANU), and by individual HIV advocates including Canon Gideon Byamugisha, Milly Katana, Major Rubaramira Ruranga.
###
Media contacts:
Gill Mathurin
Communications Manager
AIDS-Free World
gm@aidsfreeworld.org
+ 1-647-406-5731
Regional Coordinator
International Community of Women Living with HIV Eastern Africa (ICWEA)
+256 392 947313
lmworeko@icwea.org
Dorah Kiconco
Executive Director
Uganda Network On Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET)
+ 256 774199374
kicdor@yahoo.com
[1] The likelihood of HIV transmission via needle puncture of the skin is small. A summary of published reports on transmission from occupational exposure to HIV found that only 22 of 6955 individuals who had been exposed to HIV through a needle puncture became infected. This works out to roughly 1 person in 300, or a 0.32% transmission rate. Source: Elisabeth Hamlyn and Philippa Easterbrook. “Occupational exposure to HIV and the use of post-exposure prophylaxis.” Occupational Medicine, Volume 57, Issue 5, 329-336. http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/5/329.full
[2] “Killer nurse charged with attempted murder, remanded.” HOWWE Entertainment. Jan.14,, 2014.
[3] “Insanity: How a NURSE injected BABY with HIV blood.” HOWWE Entertainment. Jan. 13, 2014.
[4] “Woman arrested for injecting baby with HIV infected blood.” New Vision, Jan. 12, 2014.
[5] “Uganda: HIV Positive Nurse Injects Her Blood Into Child,” The Africa Report, Jan.15, 2014.
[6] “Uganda: How a Nurse Injected Baby With HIV Blood.” AllAfrica.com, Jan.13, 2014.
[7] “Uganda: When Health Centres Become Death Traps.” AllAfrica.com. Jan.15, 2014.
[8] Global Commission on HIV and the Law. Risks, Rights and Health, July 2012, 21-25.
Source: aidsfreeworld.org