Battle over 1,300 HIV-Positive Applicants
By Sandra Biney
A disagreement between the Ministry of the Interior and the Ghana AIDS Commission has brought into sharp focus the tension between security service recruitment protocols and statutory protections for persons living with HIV, following the disqualification of approximately 1,300 applicants who tested positive during recent medical screening.
Interior Minister Muntaka Mohammed-Mubarak confirmed the figure before Parliament’s Assurances Committee on 7 July, disclosing that the applicants tested positive for HIV during mandatory medical examinations. The Minister defended the government’s handling of the process, emphasising that the administration deliberately avoided sending medical results directly to affected applicants without prior counselling and orientation.
“Can you imagine sending somebody a result without telling the person that you have HIV? That’s not the procedure,” Muntaka told the committee. He explained that unsuccessful applicants were instead provided with contact details through which they could seek clarification about their medical status while preserving privacy.
The Minister noted that other medical conditions detected during screening including hepatitis B, cardiac conditions, mental health challenges, previous major surgeries and drug-related issues are treatable, making it important for applicants to know their health status before future recruitment opportunities.
The Ghana AIDS Commission has, however, challenged the legality of disqualifying applicants solely on the basis of HIV status, arguing that such action may contravene the Ghana AIDS Commission Act, 2016 (Act 938).
John Eliasu Mahama, the Commission’s Director of Policy Planning, told Joy FM on 8 July that Section 32 of Act 938 explicitly protects persons living with HIV against employment discrimination unless an employer can demonstrate that the specific job requires a particular medical or clinical condition.
“The HIV status of a person shall not constitute a reason to refuse employment to that person, except where an employer can show that the employment in question requires that the employee must be in a particular state of health or medical or clinical condition,” Mahama said.
He further argued that advances in medical science, including widespread antiretroviral therapy and the scientific principle of Undetectable Equals Untransmittable, have prompted many countries to review recruitment policies that previously excluded persons living with HIV.
Mahama also cautioned that an initial reactive HIV test does not amount to a confirmed diagnosis and should always be followed by confirmatory testing, counselling and linkage to care before conclusions are drawn.
The Commission commended the government’s decision to release only aggregate figures and provide a hotline for affected applicants to access counselling and medical follow-up, describing it as a step that protects applicants’ privacy.
However, Mahama disclosed that the Commission only became aware of the matter through public reports and had begun internal processes to determine whether the recruitment practices complied with Act 938. Discussions are already underway within the Commission’s leadership as it assesses the legal implications of the reported disqualifications.
The row raises significant questions about the application of Ghana’s anti-discrimination framework in the security services, where medical fitness standards have historically been applied without explicit consideration of HIV-related protections.
The Minister’s reference to other treatable conditions suggests the government may frame HIV as one of several medical disqualifiers a position the AIDS Commission is likely to contest.
For the 1,300 affected applicants, the immediate concern is access to counselling and confirmatory testing. For policymakers, the case presents a test of how far Ghana’s legislative protections extend into the recruitment practices of its security institutions.
The Commission’s review, still in its early stages, may yet determine whether the Interior Ministry’s procedures require revision or whether the matter will proceed to formal legal challenge.