By Michael Gwarisa
Zimbabwe abolished a law that criminalised HIV transmission four years ago. But a recent traditional court case in Shamva has raised fresh questions about whether people living with or affected by HIV can still face punitive consequences outside the formal criminal justice system.
Chief Nyamaropa, Munyaradzi Tivange, recently ordered a woman to pay a beast to her husband after alleging that she 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 September 15, 2026.
The case involved a woman in a polygamous marriage and a neighbour who is also reportedly in a polygamous marriage. According to the proceedings, the two allegedly entered into an intimate relationship, with the chief linking the relationship to the husband’s alleged HIV infection.
But there was no medical evidence presented in the televised proceedings establishing that the woman transmitted HIV to her husband.
HIV transmission cannot be established simply by knowing that two people have HIV or that one person was diagnosed before another. Determining transmission requires medical and epidemiological evidence, and in many circumstances it may not be possible to establish with certainty who transmitted HIV to whom. Yet the alleged transmission became part of the chief’s reasoning for ordering compensation.
“Your wife did not have sex with this man once but several times,” Chief Nyamaropa said during the proceedings.
“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. The chief also ordered the alleged male partner to pay four beasts to the woman’s husband over the alleged affair.
A cow for HIV transmission?
The case presents an unusual collision between customary justice and Zimbabwe’s modern HIV policy. For decades, Zimbabwe’s criminal law specifically provided for the prosecution of people accused of deliberately transmitting or exposing others to HIV.
Section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act criminalised wilful transmission of HIV. Parliament repealed the provision in 2022 through the legal reforms accompanying the Marriages Act.
UNAIDS welcomed the repeal, saying criminalisation of HIV transmission could discourage people from testing and accessing HIV prevention and treatment services, while also reinforcing stigma and discrimination. UNAIDS has subsequently described Zimbabwe as one of the countries that removed laws criminalising HIV exposure, non-disclosure and transmission.
But the Shamva case raises a different question: what happens when an allegation of HIV transmission is dealt with as a matter of customary compensation rather than a criminal offence?
Health Policy Watch board member Tinashe Mundawarara questioned the basis on which the traditional court concluded that the woman had infected her husband.
“Definitely not permissible, and my preliminary viewpoint is that the court probably was not seized with any medical proof that she did infect her husband, because infecting somebody is a matter of fact that needs to be proven,” Mundawarara said.
“Since HIV is a medical issue, the court should be able to, I believe, show how they were able to arrive at such a decision that she did infect her husband.”
Mundawarara said the involvement of traditional courts in cases involving alleged HIV transmission could create risks beyond the immediate dispute.
“I do not think it is possible for traditional courts to be seized with criminal cases of this nature as the issues under consideration are medical and there is a high risk of not only wrongful conviction but also perpetuating domestic violence, stigma and myths,” he said.
The husband had not confirmed his HIV status
The proceedings also raised another concern. The husband had not confirmed during the hearing that he was HIV positive. Despite this, Chief Nyamaropa advised him to seek HIV testing and, if necessary, begin antiretroviral therapy. The chief also warned him about the HIV window period and encouraged him to continue testing until he was certain of his status. He further advised him to seek counselling.
Those recommendations are consistent with the importance of prompt HIV testing and access to treatment, but the chief’s comments also 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, while no medical evidence was presented to demonstrate that his wife was the source of any possible infection.
Beyond the courtroom
The case comes at a time when Zimbabwe’s HIV response has increasingly moved away from punitive approaches. When Parliament repealed Section 79 in 2022, UNAIDS said criminalisation of HIV transmission was ineffective and discriminatory and could undermine efforts to reduce new infections by discouraging people from testing and accessing treatment and prevention services.
UNAIDS has also noted that criminalisation can increase stigma and create barriers to HIV services. The Shamva case does not revive Section 79. The provision remains repealed.
Instead, it highlights a different challenge: whether punitive responses to alleged HIV transmission can persist through other justice systems, social practices or customary dispute-resolution mechanisms even after criminal law has moved away from HIV-specific punishment.
For Mundawarara, the central issue is therefore not whether customary courts should address marital disputes, but whether they can make medical conclusions about HIV transmission without appropriate evidence.
“The issues under consideration are medical,” he said.
The case also demonstrates why HIV advocates have long argued that stigma and punitive responses must be addressed alongside access to testing, treatment and prevention.
In Zimbabwe, the law may no longer criminalise HIV transmission specifically. But the Shamva proceedings suggest that the consequences of an allegation of transmission may not have disappeared with the repeal of Section 79.
