Windhoek — The third plaintiff in the highly sensational case in which three women are claiming damages for forced sterilisation procedures done on them at State hospitals, yesterday continued to maintain that she was largely unaware of what was being presented to her.

During the resumption of the case, the plaintiff said before giving birth by caesarian section, a nurse presented a document - presumably to seek her consent - and merely stated: "Meme, meme, skryf, skryf. Changa, changa [or sign, sign]."

The plaintiff, who is HIV-positive, gave birth to her last child in October 2005.

The 44-year-old woman said she first went to the Katutura State Hospital on March 10, 2005, because she was in "severe pain", and wanted the pregnancy to be "cleaned", or terminated.

When under cross-examination by Dave Smuts, who represent the three women on behalf of the Legal Assistance Centre (LAC), she said through her interpreter that she was "very worried", and that what was in her stomach was an "unknown thing".

Speaking in Oshiwambo, she said she intended to have the pregnancy "cleaned", so that she would not die.

After an examination it was found that the baby was too big for termination, and that there were no abnormalities.

She said she was told to return to the hospital for further consultations and ante-natal care, and that she should take Nevirapine tablets as soon as her contractions start to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the HIV virus.

She returned to the hospital in October 2005 when she started having contractions.

She accounted that on her arrival at the hospital, she was given the consent form, and without anyone explaining to her the contents or implications thereof, she was urged to sign the form, before she was wheeled into a room "that had lights like a disco" - the operating theatre.

The consent forms presented to her were to allow the medical practitioners to perform a caesarian section on her, and to perform the sterilisation procedure.

While acknowledging that she signed the forms, the plaintiff maintained that she did not know the contents of the forms, and that it was not explained to her, saying that she cannot read, write or speak English.

Asked by Smuts at what stage she was given the forms, she responded that it was just before she was taken into the operating theatre.

The plaintiff said she had contemplated a normal birth, which was what she had with her previous children, and that she only found out that she was sterilised when she overheard two nurses speaking among themselves in the hospital wards where she lay after the operation, saying that she was sterilised.

The plaintiff, a seller of kapana in Katutura, said she has given birth to five other children, had one miscarriage, and her second last child died in 2002 at the age of seven months due to HIV.

She said her last four children are from her partner, who lives in a separate house in Katutura and is married to another woman who lives in northern Namibia.

She said during her antenatal sessions at the hospital in 2005, she was asked why she continued having babies while she was in an advanced age, and HIV-positive.

She also maintained that she was not informed of contraceptive methods, and was only given information about breastfeeding.

Acting for the State, Esi Schimming-Chase asked the plaintiff: "How many children do you want?"

The plaintiff responded that when she was younger she wanted to replace the child that had died.

Schimming-Chase then asked: "Can you afford more children?"

To this, the plaintiff responded: "The fact that I live in a shack does not mean that I cannot afford children," adding that she has taught her children to sell kapana.

During cross-examination yesterday, Schimming-Chase put it to the plaintiff that various medical staff had explained the caesarian and sterilisation procedures to her.

Schimming-Chase said a certain Dr E Ithe-te in a note dated March 10, 2005, wrote that he had at length explained - in Oshiwambo - current abortion legislation with the plaintiff and her partner.

Ithete further wrote that he had discussed the options of contraceptives, including the use of condoms, with the couple.

Ithete also wrote that he had suggested prevention from mother-to-child transmission, and the possibility of a hysterectomy. Ithete in the note also said he had referred the plaintiff to see a gynaecologist.

The plaintiff maintained that she has never seen nor spoken to Ithe-te, adding that if the doctor was there, she did not understand what was being discussed with her.

She did see a gynaecologist, a Dr Kroenke, who will also testify in the trial.

According to a note written by Kroenke, between March 10 and 30, 2005, she [Kroenke] offered sterilisation as an option to the plaintiff, and that she had further explained what the repercussions of sterilisation would be.

The plaintiff again said she did not understand what Kroenke had said to her because there was no translator present.

The case continues today with expert witness from gynaecologist and obstetrician, Dr Matti Kimberg.