COMPULSORY HIV TESTING BY CHURCHES

PRE-WEDDING COMPULSORY HIV TESTING BY CHURCHES AND THE LAW: NIGERIA AND INDIA.

Uchenna:        Gentlemen, May we state our individual takes on the Mandatory Premarital HIV Testing in our Churches as a prerequisite for wedding...

I am of the considered view that the compulsory premarital HIV testing and declaration in vogue today   especially in Nigerian and Churches. Barring HIV positives from getting wedded is a gross violation of the            rights of people living with HIV; right to family life, privacy, confidentiality and right to freedom from discrimination. I call on all fellow human rights and public interest lawyers to rise up and put a stop to this practice.
What are your takes on this issue please?

Mercy:            I do not think that the policy or doctrine is put in place by Nigeria churches to stop people living with HIV/AIDS from getting married but for them to know their status and know what they are getting into, so they can deal with it from day one. It is not compulsory to wed in the church. It is a willing act. So, I don’t think it is a violation of their rights. It’s actually strengthening their right to life. Knowing your HIV status helps you live rightly but only constitute a breach of their rights if the churches refuse to wed them because of their HIV status.

Marian:          The Church is only trying to open their eyes; the church is also trying to avoid potential divorce on flimsy excuses. But, come to think of it, how can two HIV positives get married? No offence but it is quite unsafe; plus I think the church deserve some reservations. I won’t forget to add that it is not a violation of any of anyone’s right. Moreover, the parties’ have wide options. The High Courts’ Marriage Registry is a good start.

Uchenna:        @Mercy- Well taken. Your last statement refers. Further, some of the Orthodox churches, while insisting on the mandatory disclosure of the result of the test to their marriage committees and officiating priest, nevertheless go ahead to solemnize the marriage union. The priests of these churches, before the solemnization of the marriage, usually counsel such couple on the medical implications of their decision if they insist that the wedding should go on. The Nigerian New Generation Pentecostal Churches, on the other hand, REFUSE OUT RIGHTLY to solemnize the marriage of a prospective couple where one of  them tests positive. To me, this is unfair and discriminatory on the body of Christ. Instead of protecting and praying for their healing and getting them wedded in faith, they practically write them off and push them away to the world. Many people unfortunately still berry their heads in the belief that the positives got the virus through   wayward living or risky behaviours.  

@Marian- The policy of the some Orthodoxy is that the insistence is meant to  help couples make better and informed choices when choosing life partners. That  can be said to be reasonable. However, it is not the case with most, if not all, Nigerian Pentecostal   churches. A Pentecostal church claims that the practice is                                     aimed at barring a proposed marriage with someone who is facing a death                                               sentence! When did HIV/AIDS become a death sentence? Does that                                        not constitute a breach to their fundamental rights to family and private life,                              right to freedom of association and    freedom from discrimination? See sections                            37, 40, and 42 (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, Federal Republic of Nigeria                                   (as amended). See also Article 21 of The Constitution of India, 1950.  This is                          only a step to kill true love preached by the churches. Now, it has become, the                           church will wed you subject to your HIV status. Where is the biblical agape                             (unconditional) love Christ bequeathed to     His Church? Jesus never rejected                                   sick people during His ministry on earth.

            You also queried me saying, how can two positives get married? This your question stems from the traditional definition of marriage as the union of man and    woman for the purpose of bearing children. This definition is faulty. It all depends      on the purpose on getting married. Marriage is not just for procreation. Couples           may     get       married just for companionship which is the first need of Adam in the Garden of Eden,          according to the Holy Book [see Genesis 2:18 and 20]. The             India Supreme Court has held that Indian citizens (especially women) have the           right to procreate as    well as to abstain from procreating, (see the case of    Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of    Maharashtra, JT 2010 (13) SC 247:     (2010) 12 SCALE 691). It is high time we    stop defining marriage as primarily     for baby making. It is beyond that. There are non-intimate couples in the world today and they are happy.

You also defended the churches’ mandatory HIV testing policy on the ground that the church is also trying to avoid potential divorce on flimsy excuse. I wish to differ on this point. Who said that marriages break up is mainly because of poor health of either partner? It is a well known fact that the main reason why couples regret their marriages         and head for divorce is the delay or the inability of them bearing children. Get me right. I am not saying that procreation is not important. I am of the view that it should not be primary. Intending couples have the right to be joined together irrespective of their HIV status.

            Yes, marriage registry is there but why not the Church? Why condemn innocent    persons who are just victims of universal scourge? There are other accidental             ways of contracting HIV/AIDS apart from illicit and risky behaviours. What           these people    need from the church is not stigmatization, rejection, repression,             discrimination and social      ostracization but accommodation, identification,             respect, encouragement, love and care. The church should be a place of safety and            refuge. Am really not comfortable with the practice. It goes against the provisions         of the   law.

            The human rights violations inherent in this practice have generated so many          debates. It threatens the very key principles of HIV testing to wit-
            (1) Individuals FREELY consent to testing;

            (2) that COUNSELLING is provided before and after testing; and

            (3) that the results are kept CONFIDENTIAL.
            The policy of the affected churches also targets a limited population. It is not cost-            effective, does not encourage HIV/AIDS prevention and control measures.

Otuonye:         When a person goes to the hospitals for a test and tests negative, he is counselled                          and encouraged that he can still live a normal healthy life. He is given some drugs                     for treatment but in the church, when they find out that a person has tested                                      positive to HIV, he is discriminated and scorned and made to believe that he has                                been sentenced to death without right of appeal. The church is supposed to be a                              spiritual hospital, where the incurable are curable; where people should run to                           when doctors have lost medical hope or exhausted all medical solutions. The                                  victims ought to be prayed for and receive instant healing as Jesus, the owner of                            the churches, would do.  I don’t understand this type of policy practiced by                             today’s churches. Alright! What happens to a couple that has been married                                (traditionally) and has had some kids and now decided to wed in the church?  Will               they still be compelled to go for a mandatory HIV test before being wedded?                                 When I go for HIV test, I do so because I want to know my current status, not                              because of one cash and self driven pastor.

Uchenna:        Thank you all for your weighty and good opinions. My learned brother-                                          Otuonye, your question is for those churches to answer.

                        The conclusion of the whole matter is that the churches’ compulsory pre-                                      wedding HIV testing imposition on intending couples is not backed by any law.                            There is no national law in Nigerian backing this policy of the churches. Yet, this                                  illegality has continued. Almost all the churches require a certificate of completed                 test to be submitted before a proposed marriage is celebrated. That is not enough.                               I know a Pentecostal church that has an accredited hospital where the couples go              for the test and the result is sent to the church and it is the church that will                                                 announce the result to the couple! This is compulsory also. Now, tell me what                                happened to the international confidential HIV testing principle?

The practice makes mockery of the whole matter in Nigerian society. India has shown a good example that Nigeria should emulate. During the commemoration of the 2005 World AIDS Day, Indian government made known of its intention to make premarital HIV testing mandatory. As usual, the people marched to the streets in protest against the declaration. The government immediately retracted the statement. Till date, there is no mandatory premarital HIV/AIDS testing sanctioned by law in India. However, there are churches in India the insist on the test. The difference is that it is confidential to the couple, no third part body gets to know about it and the wedding can still go on if the intending couple insist.  

Imagine on your wedding day in Nigeria, unaware of the result yet, you arrived the church with family members, friends and associates only to meet the gate heavily padlocked. On enquiry, the gate keeper mutters, Oga, you no go enter oh...Pastor talk say no wedding today for you…because you carry AIDS oh…What an embarrassment!

I concur with Sylvia Ifemeje (“Mandatory Premarital HIV testing policy in Nigeria: a gross violation of the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS”, The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 16, No. 3, March 2012, 405) that the family is a fundamental and natural unit of the society and should be accorded the full protection of the state. Human rights law therefore promotes the right of all peoples to marry and found a family. It upholds the ideals of equal and consenting marriage and tries to guard against abuses which undermine this principle.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 encompasses the right of a man and woman of full age to, without any limitation due to race, nationality or RELIGION, to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during the marriage and at its dissolution. This Article 16 has been domesticated and enforceable in Nigeria. See also Article 18 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and Rule of UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunity for People with Disability.

I conclude that it is crystal clear that the compulsory HIV/AIDS testing always demanded by churches in Nigeria constitute a gross violation of the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS. The right to private and family life, confidentiality and freedom from discrimination of these church members must be respected. These rights are fundamental and admit of no limitations anywhere in the world including Nigeria and India. Nigeria must respect this right like India and other countries have done.

Uchenna .H. Okoronkwo

(uchenna.okoronkwo@gmail.com)