Priti Patel, project lawyer (HIV/Aids) for the Southern Africa Litigation Centre is in Livingstone, Zambia to live-blog a groundbreaking HIV discrimination case in the country. The case, Kingaipe and Another v Attorney-General, involves two former Zambian Air Force (ZAF) employees, Stainley Kingaipe and Charles Chookole, who were allegedly subjected to mandatory testing for HIV without their knowledge and dismissed due to their HIV status. The two men are seeking reinstatement and damages for mental and emotional anguish. Both applicants in the case worked with the ZAF for over 13 years, having joined when they were 21 years old. They held non-combat throughout their career at ZAF. In 2001, they were allegedly subjected to an HIV test without their consent or knowledge and given anti-retroviral treatment without their knowledge. In October 2001, without their knowledge or participation, a Medical Board reviewed their medical records and declared them permanently unfit for service. They both continued to work at the ZAF for a full year after the Board decision, performing so well in their job that one of the applicants was promoted during that time. Neither of them took a day of sick leave during that one-year period. In October 2002, they were both dismissed. The Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) is an organisation based in Johannesburg, South Africa working on human rights issues in Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The organisation engages in litigations advancing human rights and provides legal support through training. In one of her posts from Livingstone, Zambia, Priti writes, “…I also am hoping to give folks a sense of what happens inside a courtroom especially in a groundbreaking trial; a lot of that is less about the law itself and more about people and their stories,” I arrived in Livingstone, Zambia on Monday for the first ever case in Zambia to determine whether discrimination by the military on the basis of HIV violates the Zambian Constitution. The case goes to trial tomorrow, Wednesday. So a few things to know before Wednesday: * I expect the trial to last 3 or more days. During that time Paul Mulenga, the passionate lawyer for the two former employees, expects to call the two men, their former colleagues, a psychologist, psycho-social counsellor, an HIV expert, and a medical doctor to testify. * I don’t know how many or who the Attorney-General’s office is going to call to testify. * A number of other countries in the region, including Nambia and more recently South Africa, have rejected HIV discrimination in the military noting that there is no medical or policy reason for such a practice. * I will try to provide regular updates of what is happening in the courtroom, but that will depend on internet connectivity in the High Court. At the least, I can promise to post at the end of the day on the day’s happening. Finally, we (SALC) are a legal organization and I am a lawyer so there will be discussion of the legal issues and strategy involved in the case. But I also am hoping to give folks a sense of what happens inside a courtroom especially in a groundbreaking trial; a lot of that is less about the law itself and more about people and their stories. In another post titled “Early coverage of the trial,” she writes: So the Lusaka Times Online is carrying a wire story on the case. The story itself is basically a rehash of our press release but the comments to the story make interesting reading. Zambia Watchdog coverage has also generated intense discussions. Priti Patel spoke with Global Voices Online about their intention to liveblog/semi-liveblog (depending on Internet connection at the High Court in Livingstone) the trial. Question: Let's start with the case. Why is this case important? Answer: This is obviously a public interest case. It is the first case in this country that will decide whether the Zambian constitution protects people living with HIV/AIDS from discrimination and unfair dismissal from work. The other reason is that it is pretty clear that strengthening human rights in society helps mitigate the effect of HIV/AIDS. This case will basically decided the extent of rights guaranteed by the constitution for people living with HIV/AIDS. Q: Your organisation works in 10 countries in Southern Africa. Is this the first case of this kind in the region? A: There was a similar case in Namibia. Namibia had in a place a pre-employement HIV testing policy. The military was refusing to hire anybody found to be HIV positive. The policy was successful challenged in the Labour court. Q: Generally speaking, how is the human rights situation in region? A: It differs from country to country.