A traditional court in Shamva, Mashonaland Central Province, recently ordered a woman to compensate her husband after allegedly infecting him with HIV, in a ruling that has raised fresh questions about whether people living with or affected by HIV can still face punitive consequences outside the formal criminal justice system, four years after Zimbabwe abolished the law criminalising HIV transmission.
Chief Nyamaropa, born Munyaradzi Tivange, ordered the woman to pay a beast to her husband, alleging that she had infected him with HIV during an extramarital relationship.
The ruling was delivered during a traditional court proceeding broadcast on Zimquick Television, a YouTube channel, on 15 September 2026.
The case involved a woman in a polygamous marriage and a neighbour, also reportedly in a polygamous marriage, who were said to have entered into an intimate relationship.
The chief linked this relationship to the husband’s alleged HIV infection, and the alleged transmission became part of his reasoning for ordering compensation.
However, no medical evidence was presented during the televised proceedings to establish that the woman had in fact transmitted HIV to her husband.
HIV transmission cannot be established simply by confirming that two people are HIV-positive, or that one was diagnosed before the other; determining the direction of transmission requires medical and epidemiological evidence, and in many cases it may not be possible to establish with certainty who transmitted the virus to whom.
“Your wife did not have sex with this man once but several times,” Chief Nyamaropa said “And your wife, I want her to pay in the form of a live beast as well because she infected you with HIV.”
The woman was not present when the ruling was delivered. Chief Nyamaropa also ordered the man alleged to be her lover to pay four beasts to the woman’s husband over the affair.
The case highlights an unusual collision between customary justice and Zimbabwe’s modern HIV policy.
For decades, Zimbabwean criminal law specifically provided for the prosecution of people accused of deliberately transmitting or exposing others to HIV, under Section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which criminalised wilful transmission of the virus.
Parliament repealed the provision in 2022, as part of the legal reforms accompanying the Marriages Act.
The Shamva case therefore raises a different question: what happens when an allegation of HIV transmission is dealt with as a matter of customary compensation, rather than as a criminal offence?
The proceedings also raised a separate concern. At no point during the hearing did the husband confirm that he was, in fact, HIV positive.
Despite this, Chief Nyamaropa advised him to seek HIV testing and, if necessary, to begin antiretroviral therapy.
The chief also warned him about the HIV window period, encouraged him to continue testing until he was certain of his status, and advised him to seek counselling.
While these recommendations are consistent with the importance of prompt HIV testing and access to treatment, the chief’s own comments underscore the uncertainty surrounding the central allegation in the case.
At the time of the televised proceedings, the husband’s HIV status had not been established publicly, and no medical evidence was presented to demonstrate that his wife was the source of any possible infection.
More: Health Times
Leave a Reply Cancel reply