SANDF's HIV policy attacked

2014-07-29 22:44


Multimedia   ·   User Galleries   ·   News in Pictures Send us your pictures  ·  Send us your stories

Pretoria - The SA National Defence Force (SANDF) has been accused of brazenly ignoring a court order granted six years ago and their own regulations which declare any discrimination against HIV-positive applicants unconstitutional.

Two women recruits whose contracts were cancelled because they tested HIV-positive joined forces with civil rights organisation Section27, the SA Security Forces Union and SA National Defence Union in taking the SANDF to court for unfair discrimination.

The two women had undergone two years of training before their contracts were cancelled because of their HIV status.

The SANDF's present policy excludes candidates with HIV or other chronic health conditions from qualifying for the military's health classification, which automatically denies them admission into the SANDF's Core Service System and Military Skills Development System without taking into account individuals' actual state of health or competency to perform their jobs.

Three Defence Force members in 2008 successfully took the SANDF to court for failing to promote, externally deploy or recruit them because of their HIV-positive status.

The court then found that the SANDF policy unreasonably and unjustifiably infringed on the rights of aspirant and current HIV-positive members and ordered the SANDF to rectify its policy and reinstate one of the applicants.

The order was granted by consent after a settlement and the SANDF never tried to lodge an appeal and had no option than to comply.

The SANDF in court papers admitted the discriminatory practice but claimed it was justifiable.

Counsel for the applicants, Advocate Gilbert Marcus, argued that the SANDF was trying to re-litigate a 2008 case they had already lost, which was a clear abuse of the court process.

He said the previous court order was quite unambiguous and required the SANDF to formulate a new HIV policy because its existing policy not to recruit, deploy or promote anyone with HIV was unconstitutional.

He said the SANDF had simply not set out sufficient reasons to justify its continued blanket exclusion policy against HIV-positive recruits.

HIV policy

While the health status and fitness of candidates were relevant for certain military positions, the exclusion simply based on HIV unfairly discriminated against persons living with HIV and was not based on scientific facts about HIV and the treatment thereof.

It assumed without proof that all persons with HIV could not work under harsh conditions, he added.

Marcus said the SANDF unashamedly adopted the policy that HIV automatically excluded one from the required health classification.

It was in striking contradiction to the SANDF's own policy because they did not dismiss HIV-positive members and recognised that they could be healthy and could be deployed.

He said the irony was that one of the applicants in the 2008 application was the actual trainer who trained others to be deployed and was extremely fit, yet was denied employment.

One struggled to be polite about the SANDF's contention that there were circumstances which justified a departure from a court order and putting one's own interpretation on it, he argued.

Judge Piet Meyer remarked that it did not seem as if the SANDF had formulated a new HIV-policy in terms of the court order.

Meyer said it made sense that a cook, for example, did not need to be as fit as a foot soldier.

Marcus argued that prejudices against HIV still existed and that this fresh instance of discrimination flouted the Constitution and had a devastating impact as it denied people living with HIV the right to earn a living.

Discrimination justifiable

Counsel for the SANDF Advocate Danie Preis argued that the discrimination was justifiable.

"An army cannot function in a vacuum, nor is it there to placate the masses and stroke the bristling feathers of those who feel they have been slighted.

"The defence force of any country has the singular and sometimes unenviable task of standing in the frontline and defending a country against those who wish to do it evil.

"To this end, it is quite appropriate to state that any defence force must consist of the fittest, the healthiest and the best that a country has," he said.

Preis said subsequent to the 2008 judgment, the SANDF now deployed HIV-positive persons and they were being promoted, giving effect to the court order.

He said because of changing circumstances, the defence force now had more applicants than posts and could pick and choose among the fittest.

"They [HIV-positive persons] have an incurable disease for which they must take medication regularly.

"Because of the downsizing of the SANDF there are fewer positions available and the defence force is obliged to turn away people who have no illnesses at all.

"Persons with an underlying difficulty, who are not completely healthy, are turned away.

"The SANDF can pick and choose. It does not have to choose someone who may be defective in some way," he said.

‘More expensive’

Judge Meyer wanted to know if he was suggesting that "a most brilliant lawyer" with HIV ought to stand back for a far inferior lawyer and if it was suggested that people with HIV could not be the fittest.

Preis said this was not so, but argued that people with HIV were "more expensive" as their treatment was expensive.

"It is a problem for the budget of the SANDF... An analysis on the causes of death in the SANDF shows that 33.4% of deaths are HIV/Aids related.

"At the end of the day we know it's an incurable disease. We know it often becomes full blown Aids. These people must be cared for and become prohibitively expensive to care for.

"The defence force wanted to avoid the problem, which may only manifest itself years later.

"That's as good as it gets with regards to justification," he said.

Judge Meyer reserved judgment.


Read more on:    sandf  |  pretoria  |  hiv/aids

Join the conversation! encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.

Sachs heads to Gauteng

2017-11-19 05:58 publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Competition regulation for a growing and inclusive economy

ADVERTORIAL: The Competition Commission of South Africa is conducting advocacy work in the South African automotive aftermarket industry and has gazetted a Draft Code of Conduct for public comment.

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.