I offer to differ with the view that people with the HIV disease have a precedence to deter them from conducting unprotected sex. Law should give people freedom to do what they want within the limitations of morality. The case in question raises issues of credibility. Sex, by nature, always involve two people who consent. If one has the disease this is the whole package, and the other should not later come and regret. In the first place, if people want to be free from HIV, abstenance is always the best weapon of defense.

I thought the case is closed. All the same, it is a gid development in the history of law. Why I appreciate the fact that two Africans are involved, and both from Uganda (that's if you include Ssenyanga as you said), I still think it is a great development. This is a precedent to newer cases regarding people who willfully infect others of deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS.