The Rainbow Academy of the Bisi Alimi Foundation and LEAP Academy have criticised judicial setbacks, persistent stigma and barriers to legal redress as obstacles to enforcing Nigeria’s HIV and AIDS (Anti-Discrimination) Act 2014.

In a policy brief titled “Closing the Enforcement Gap: Enforcing Nigeria’s HIV and AIDS Anti-Discrimination Act 2014 to Guarantee Workplace Compliance and Protect Livelihoods,” the groups said that more than a decade after the law was enacted, many people living with HIV remained vulnerable to discrimination at workplaces, healthcare facilities and other settings.

They reported that more than 75 per cent of people whose fundamental rights had been violated did not seek legal redress, citing limited knowledge of the justice system and fear that litigation could expose their HIV status.

The 2014 Act prohibits mandatory HIV testing and discrimination in employment based on HIV status, while requiring confidentiality in employment, organisational and healthcare settings.

According to a survey of more than 100 participants cited in the brief, 58.3 per cent said they had had a job offer withdrawn after their HIV status was disclosed, while 19 per cent reported direct human rights violations, including unlawful dismissal.

More than 80 per cent of those whose rights were violated did not seek legal redress, with over 40 per cent of those who remained silent citing lack of knowledge of the justice system and fear of disclosure.

Speaking on the report, a LEAP Academy fellow, Manuel Eresaba, said Sections 5 and 6 of the Act prohibit compulsory HIV testing and exclusion based on HIV status.

He alleged, however, that some organisations used pre-employment medical checks and other screening procedures to obtain health information, while employment offers could subsequently be withdrawn on grounds such as being “medically unfit”.

The groups cited a May 15, 2025 judgment by Justice Ikechi Nweneka of the National Industrial Court, Lagos, in a case brought by Minority Watch, saying the court held that compulsory HIV testing as a condition for resuming work, unauthorised disclosure of HIV status and withdrawal of employment on that basis violated fundamental rights to privacy and dignity.

They contrasted the judgment with a November 5, 2025 ruling by Justice O.A. Odusanya of the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja, which they described as a setback.

According to the policy brief, the court dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Minority Watch on behalf of an applicant excluded from a fashion reality show.

The groups said the applicant had been on antiretroviral therapy since 2016 and was medically and scientifically incapable of transmitting HIV, but the court accepted the organisers’ argument that the exclusion was a “prudent measure” to prevent transmission.

They argued that the ruling treated the matter as a contractual dispute rather than a fundamental rights issue and called for greater judicial understanding of current HIV science, including the Undetectable = Untransmittable (U=U) principle.

U=U means that people living with HIV who maintain an undetectable viral load through consistent treatment cannot sexually transmit the virus. The groups also expressed concern that the public nature of court records could discourage people from seeking redress because digital filings and judgments may expose litigants’ HIV status.

They said stigma in healthcare settings, including judgmental attitudes and identifiable standalone HIV clinics, could similarly discourage people from seeking care and maintaining treatment.

To strengthen enforcement of the 2014 Act, the groups urged the Ministry of Labour, National Agency for the Control of AIDS (NACA), National Orientation Agency and state AIDS and infectious disease agencies to conduct compliance audits across workplaces, healthcare facilities and other organisations.

They also called for training of healthcare professionals on advances in HIV prevention, treatment and care, sanctions against entities that discriminate based on HIV status, and greater judicial awareness of current HIV science.

The groups further advocated safeguards such as pseudonyms, sealed filings and anonymous proceedings where appropriate to protect the identities of people living with HIV who seek legal redress.