ONTARIO
E-LAWS

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z 

THE JOHNSON AZIGA CASE
 

Johnson Aziga, a former research analyst with Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General, was convicted of first-degree murder for spreading the virus that causes AIDS in Hamilton in what's believed to be the first prosecution of its kind in Canada.

Johnson Aziga, 52, had spent five years in pre-trial custody while cycling through several legal teams. Two women died after allegedly having unprotected sex with him. This charge is different from any in Canada, which usually involve aggravated sexual assault.

The Aziga Case is a revelation of the dynamic nature of law. This development places great emphasis on the role of law as a protector of not only human rights, but human motives. In the past law did not apply to death by HIV or AIDS. It was considered aggravated assault, but not murder.

This case has added a new dimension to Canadian law. The greatest HIV/AIDS case in Canada took place in Toronto almost four decades ago. Charles Ssenyanga, like Aziga, was from Uganda. He was convicted of aggravated assault due to HIV/AIDS although he died shortly before his sentence. There are 60,000 people living with HIV in Canada. Chances are some of these people will have unprotected sex with someone in future.

The Aziga Case will serve as an excellent precedent for such kinds of cases. The challenge now on the Canadian legal system is to try to harmonize the historic conception that only people of African decent could potentially infect others with the HIV virus. This notion has the potential for allowing cases involving non-Africans to go unprosecuted. In the interest of justice, and pursuant to the Aziga and Ssenyanga cases, there should be concerted efforts in trying to apply this law to all people. The two Ugandans involved in these cases should not give the impression that other nationals cannot carry and infect others. It is unfortunate that the landmark case involved an African, because in the mind of many, HIV/AIDS originated from there.

Future lawyers and paralegals should revisit cases like this one and analyze succinctly whether prejudice has not been a factor. With over 60,000 people living with the virus the fact that those who have been prosecuted in the Canadian courts are both Africans, and from Uganda, should be source for concern. This should not, however, be construed as discrimination. My thinking is that the associations are striking. In future, I intend to advocate for cases of this nature so that law can play its balancing role.