November, 06 2009, 09:37am EDT
Uganda: Bill Threatens Progress on HIV/AIDS
Proposed Law Impedes Effective HIV Response, Violates Rights
KAMPALA
A proposed Ugandan law on HIV/AIDS promotes dangerous and discredited approaches to the AIDS epidemic and would violate human rights, a group of more than 50 Ugandan and international organizations and individuals said in a report released today. The HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Bill could be taken up by Uganda's parliament shortly.
The report, a 10-page analysis of the bill, was released in Kampala, Uganda, and Geneva, Switzerland at a meeting on HIV treatment sponsored by the World Health Organization. The report criticizes repressive provisions in the legislation as contrary to the goal of universal access to HIV prevention, care, and treatment. The proposed law includes mandatory testing for HIV and forced disclosure of HIV status. It also criminalizes the willful transmission of HIV, the failure to "observe instructions on prevention and treatment," and misleading statements on preventing or controlling HIV.
"We know what works and what doesn't in fighting HIV," said Beatrice Were of the Uganda Network on Law, Ethics & HIV/AIDS. "This bill, unfortunately, is full of ineffective approaches that violate human rights and will set us back in our efforts to fight the AIDS epidemic and expand HIV programs nationwide."
The report cites Uganda's success during the 1990's in addressing HIV. Rather than adopt punitive approaches, the government engaged civil society in prevention efforts and worked to reduce the stigma of the disease. Citing international standards and "best practices," the report says that mandatory testing and criminal penalties can be counterproductive, driving people away from testing and treatment.
The report also highlighted how laws that criminalize HIV transmission can result in disproportionate prosecution of women because more women are tested as part of pre- or ante-natal medical care and therefore know their HIV status. Women's inability to safely negotiate condom use or disclosure to partners who might have been the source of their infection is not recognized in the bill as defenses against criminal penalties. Women who transmit HIV to their infants after birth via breast milk would also be subject to criminal prosecution, the report says.
"Women and girls have been disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS," said Joseph Amon, health and human rights director at Human Rights Watch. "My fear is that mandatory testing and disclosure will lead to prosecution and violence instead of treatment and care."
The bill also criminalizes a wide and ill-defined range of conduct, such as discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS and breach of confidentiality. According to the report, many of these acts are better dealt with through civil liability. Criminalizing such a wide range of actions opens the door for the government to prosecute people in selective or abusive ways while adding to the huge backlog in Uganda's courts.
The report highlights other areas in which the bill lacks specificity or appropriate guidance, including provisions that waive consent to testing when it is "unreasonably withheld." The report also found that the bill contains insufficient protections relating to the testing of children and their subsequent treatment, care, and support.
Further, the bill would mandate compulsory testing for drug users and sex workers, two already marginalized and criminalized groups. The report expresses concern that the proposed law, combined with other legislative efforts strengthening penalties related to homosexuality, is adding to a body of repressive criminal law in Uganda. These laws make it more difficult for civil society and non-governmental organizations to conduct effective programs with stigmatized communities.
"It's important to have a law that protects the rights of people with regard to the HIV/AIDS epidemic," Amon said. "But the bill as drafted would only make it harder to prevent and treat HIV and would put Uganda's HIV policies and response far outside of global norms."
In early November, a slightly updated version of the bill was made available for public comment. The most troubling aspects, including the lack of consent in testing, third party disclosure by medical practitioners, and criminalization of transmission have not changed. The modifications to the bill are in some instances harmful, in others beneficial.
The bill introduces additional, troubling provisions:
- Attempted transmission of HIV is now criminalized. This further opens the door for abusive prosecutions.
- Government responsibility to take steps necessary to ensure access to essential medicines at affordable prices by persons with HIV/AIDS has been deleted.
Some changes to the bill improve the potential for human rights protections, such as:
- Failure to inform one's sexual partners of HIV status is no longer criminalized, and discriminatory acts are now subject to civil, rather than criminal, liability.
- Failure to take reasonable steps and precautions to protect oneself from HIV transmission is no longer criminalized.
- Children born to HIV-positive women are guaranteed immediate appropriate treatment, care, support, and routine medication.
Endorsing Organizations and Individuals are:
1. ActionAid International Uganda
Uganda
2. African Services Committee
United States
3. AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa
Namibia
4. Andrey Rylkov Foundation for Health and Social Justice
Russia
5. ATHENA Network
Global
6. BAOBAB for Women's Human Rights
Nigeria
7. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
Canada
8. Canadian Treatment Action Council
Canada
9. Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition
Jamaica
10. Center for Health Policy and Innovation
South Africa
11. Center for Reproductive Rights
United States
12. Center for the Right to Health
Nigeria
13. Children's Hope Initiative
Kampala, Uganda
14. Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project
United States
15. Foundation for Integrative AIDS Research
United States
16. Fundacion para Estudio a Investigacion de la Mujer
[Foundation for Studies and Research on Women]
Argentina
17. Global AIDS Alliance
United States
18. The Global Forum on MSM & HIV
United States
19. Global Coalition of Women against AIDS in Uganda
Uganda
20. Health GAP
United States
21. International AIDS Women's Caucus
Global
22. International Community of Women Living with HIV and AIDS
Global
23. International Community of Women Living with HIV & AIDS-Eastern Africa Region
Uganda
24. Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Masyarakat [Community Legal Aid Institute]
Indonesia
25. Mama's Club
United States
26. National AIDS Housing Coalition - Facilitator of the International AIDS Housing Roundtable
United States
27. National Coalition of Women with AIDS in Uganda (NACOA)
Uganda
28. National Community of Women living with HIV/AIDS in Uganda (NACWOLA)
Uganda
29. National Empowerment Network of PLHAs in Kenya (NEPHAK)
Nairobi, Kenya
30. National Forum of People Living with HIV/AIDS Networks in Uganda
Uganda
31. National Guidance and Empowerment Network of People with HIV and AIDS
Uganda
32. Physicians for Human Rights
United States
33. Positive Malaysian Treatment Access & Advocacy Group
Malaysia
34. Positive Women Incorporated
New Zealand
35. Positive Women Leaders of Uganda (POWL)
Uganda
36. Prevenir es Cuidar [Prevention is Care]
Argentina
37. Rubaga Exchange on AIDS and Livelihood Support Group
Uganda
38. Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha (SANGRAM)
India
39. Social Justice Advocacy Initiative
Nigeria
40. Support on AIDS & Life thru Telephone Helpline (SALT)
Uganda
41. Tanzania Women Living with HIV/AIDS (Tawoliha)
Tanzania
42. Uganda Network of AIDS Service Organisation (UNASO)
Uganda
43. Uganda Young Positives
Uganda
44. United Belize Advocacy Movement
Belize
45. UGANET
Uganda
Individuals:
-
46. Alana Klein
Assistant Professor, McGill University
Canada
47. Amanda Lugg
United States
48. Moses Mulumba, LLB
Health and Human Rights Advisor
Coalition for Health promotion and Social Development
Uganda
49. Maria Rakgowa
Botswana
50. Mindy Roseman
Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School
United States
51. Meena Saraswathi Seshu
India
52. Busingye Kabumba
Lecturer, Faculty of Law
Makerere University
Uganda
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular