News / National
We must be careful in interpreting DNA paternity results to avoid unnecessary alarm
12 hrs ago | Views
When statistics are not handled with care, they can cause more harm than good and even pose real danger.
The recent report released by Global DNA Zimbabwe has understandably ignited heated debates across the nation.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
According to the organization's statistics, a staggering 72% of paternity tests conducted returned negative results, meaning that in those particular cases, the presumed fathers were not biologically related to the children in question.
On the face of it, these figures appear shocking, suggesting that most men in Zimbabwe are raising children who are not theirs.
But as concerning as these numbers are, they need to be properly contextualized and understood for what they really mean - and what they do not mean.
Failure to do so risks creating unnecessary alarm, mistrust, and even the breakdown of families based on flawed interpretations of statistical data.
The first important point to stress is that these DNA results are not derived from a random sample of the general population.
Global DNA is not calling door to door, selecting families at random, and then testing children's parentage.
Rather, the organization conducts tests for clients who already harbor doubts about the paternity of their children.
In most cases, these doubts arise from suspected or discovered infidelity, or from inconsistencies in timelines and relationships that make fathers question whether a child is truly theirs.
That context immediately changes the interpretation of the results.
It is entirely expected that in such a selective sample, the percentage of negative results will be disproportionately high.
To illustrate this, consider a medical analogy.
Imagine if you walked into a hospital emergency department and tested all patients there for illness.
You would likely find that a very high percentage of people were sick—far higher than in the general population.
But that would not mean that the majority of citizens are ill.
It would simply reflect the fact that you were testing people who had already sought medical attention because they suspected or knew something was wrong.
The same principle applies here: the men who request DNA tests already have doubts, which makes the likelihood of negative results far higher than if testing were carried out across random families with no pre-existing suspicion.
This is why the report must be treated with caution.
While it sheds light on genuine cases of paternity disputes, it does not support the blanket conclusion that most Zimbabwean men are raising children who are not theirs.
To interpret the data that way is to commit a basic statistical fallacy—extrapolating the results of a selective sample to the entire population.
If, for instance, a random cross-section of births in Zimbabwe were subjected to paternity testing, it is very likely that the percentage of disputed paternity cases would be much lower than the 72% cited by Global DNA.
Until such comprehensive studies are conducted, no one can credibly claim that the majority of men in this country are unknowingly raising children who belong to other men.
The danger of misinterpreting the statistics lies not only in intellectual dishonesty but in the real human consequences such distortions can have.
If people begin to believe, based on flawed analysis, that most men are fathers to children who are not theirs, this could sow unnecessary suspicion, mistrust, and even hostility within families.
Men in otherwise healthy, trusting relationships might begin to second-guess their partners, treating their children with skepticism rather than love.
Women may face unwarranted accusations of infidelity, and children could find themselves caught in a web of tension and rejection through no fault of their own.
That is why sober reflection is required.
It is possible to acknowledge that the statistics highlight a serious problem—namely, that some men are indeed being deceived or misled into accepting paternity—without turning the findings into a sweeping indictment of Zimbabwean women or of family life in general.
The issue is not that most women are unfaithful, but that in cases where paternity is in doubt, the consequences for men, women, and children can be profound and often devastating.
It is in this context that the calls for compulsory paternity testing at birth, as advocated by opposition MP Bridget Nyandoro and echoed by activist Linda Masarira, deserve genuine consideration.
While the idea may sound radical or unpopular to some, there are compelling reasons why it may in fact be a necessary and overdue step for Zimbabwe.
Compulsory DNA testing at birth would achieve three critical objectives.
First, it would provide certainty and peace of mind for fathers, ensuring that they raise their children without lingering doubts or suspicions.
A father who knows without question that a child is his can fully embrace his role without reservations.
Second, such testing would protect men from being misled into accepting paternity for children who are not theirs, thereby shielding them from years of financial and emotional exploitation through maintenance obligations or coerced responsibility.
Third, compulsory testing would spare children the trauma of later-life discoveries that the man they had always believed to be their father was, in fact, not their biological parent.
Such revelations, often occurring in adolescence or adulthood, can be deeply destabilizing, leaving lasting scars on a child's sense of identity and belonging.
Of course, the introduction of compulsory testing must be handled with sensitivity.
The aim is not to fuel suspicion between men and women but to create a fair, transparent, and honest foundation for family life, much like couples who go for HIV testing before marriage - not out of mistrust, but to begin their union on the basis of truth and openness.
In the long run, such a policy could actually strengthen relationships by eliminating one of the major sources of mistrust.
Just as marriage certificates provide legal clarity about the status of a union, compulsory DNA testing would provide biological clarity about the parent-child relationship.
Both serve to prevent disputes and to protect the rights of all parties involved.
What is crucial is that this debate be approached with balance and sobriety.
On one hand, we must resist the temptation to sensationalize the Global DNA findings and spread panic-inducing narratives that "most men are raising other men's children."
That is a distortion of what the statistics truly reveal.
On the other hand, we must recognize that cases of misattributed paternity, however frequent or rare, represent a serious injustice and a breach of trust that society cannot ignore.
The way forward, therefore, is to confront the issue of paternity with open eyes and clear minds.
Properly contextualized statistics should inform our policies, not mislead them.
Compulsory DNA testing, far from being a punitive measure against women, should be embraced as a long-term solution that protects men, women, and children alike from the corrosive effects of deceit, doubt, and dispute.
In doing so, Zimbabwe would not only settle questions of paternity fairly and conclusively but also lay a firmer foundation for the integrity and stability of family life.
Only with this level of clarity and honesty can we ensure that the bond between father and child rests on truth, trust, and certainty—rather than suspicion, deception, or statistical misinterpretation.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
The recent report released by Global DNA Zimbabwe has understandably ignited heated debates across the nation.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
According to the organization's statistics, a staggering 72% of paternity tests conducted returned negative results, meaning that in those particular cases, the presumed fathers were not biologically related to the children in question.
On the face of it, these figures appear shocking, suggesting that most men in Zimbabwe are raising children who are not theirs.
But as concerning as these numbers are, they need to be properly contextualized and understood for what they really mean - and what they do not mean.
Failure to do so risks creating unnecessary alarm, mistrust, and even the breakdown of families based on flawed interpretations of statistical data.
The first important point to stress is that these DNA results are not derived from a random sample of the general population.
Global DNA is not calling door to door, selecting families at random, and then testing children's parentage.
Rather, the organization conducts tests for clients who already harbor doubts about the paternity of their children.
In most cases, these doubts arise from suspected or discovered infidelity, or from inconsistencies in timelines and relationships that make fathers question whether a child is truly theirs.
That context immediately changes the interpretation of the results.
It is entirely expected that in such a selective sample, the percentage of negative results will be disproportionately high.
To illustrate this, consider a medical analogy.
Imagine if you walked into a hospital emergency department and tested all patients there for illness.
You would likely find that a very high percentage of people were sick—far higher than in the general population.
But that would not mean that the majority of citizens are ill.
It would simply reflect the fact that you were testing people who had already sought medical attention because they suspected or knew something was wrong.
The same principle applies here: the men who request DNA tests already have doubts, which makes the likelihood of negative results far higher than if testing were carried out across random families with no pre-existing suspicion.
This is why the report must be treated with caution.
While it sheds light on genuine cases of paternity disputes, it does not support the blanket conclusion that most Zimbabwean men are raising children who are not theirs.
To interpret the data that way is to commit a basic statistical fallacy—extrapolating the results of a selective sample to the entire population.
If, for instance, a random cross-section of births in Zimbabwe were subjected to paternity testing, it is very likely that the percentage of disputed paternity cases would be much lower than the 72% cited by Global DNA.
Until such comprehensive studies are conducted, no one can credibly claim that the majority of men in this country are unknowingly raising children who belong to other men.
The danger of misinterpreting the statistics lies not only in intellectual dishonesty but in the real human consequences such distortions can have.
If people begin to believe, based on flawed analysis, that most men are fathers to children who are not theirs, this could sow unnecessary suspicion, mistrust, and even hostility within families.
Men in otherwise healthy, trusting relationships might begin to second-guess their partners, treating their children with skepticism rather than love.
That is why sober reflection is required.
It is possible to acknowledge that the statistics highlight a serious problem—namely, that some men are indeed being deceived or misled into accepting paternity—without turning the findings into a sweeping indictment of Zimbabwean women or of family life in general.
The issue is not that most women are unfaithful, but that in cases where paternity is in doubt, the consequences for men, women, and children can be profound and often devastating.
It is in this context that the calls for compulsory paternity testing at birth, as advocated by opposition MP Bridget Nyandoro and echoed by activist Linda Masarira, deserve genuine consideration.
While the idea may sound radical or unpopular to some, there are compelling reasons why it may in fact be a necessary and overdue step for Zimbabwe.
Compulsory DNA testing at birth would achieve three critical objectives.
First, it would provide certainty and peace of mind for fathers, ensuring that they raise their children without lingering doubts or suspicions.
A father who knows without question that a child is his can fully embrace his role without reservations.
Second, such testing would protect men from being misled into accepting paternity for children who are not theirs, thereby shielding them from years of financial and emotional exploitation through maintenance obligations or coerced responsibility.
Third, compulsory testing would spare children the trauma of later-life discoveries that the man they had always believed to be their father was, in fact, not their biological parent.
Such revelations, often occurring in adolescence or adulthood, can be deeply destabilizing, leaving lasting scars on a child's sense of identity and belonging.
Of course, the introduction of compulsory testing must be handled with sensitivity.
The aim is not to fuel suspicion between men and women but to create a fair, transparent, and honest foundation for family life, much like couples who go for HIV testing before marriage - not out of mistrust, but to begin their union on the basis of truth and openness.
In the long run, such a policy could actually strengthen relationships by eliminating one of the major sources of mistrust.
Just as marriage certificates provide legal clarity about the status of a union, compulsory DNA testing would provide biological clarity about the parent-child relationship.
Both serve to prevent disputes and to protect the rights of all parties involved.
What is crucial is that this debate be approached with balance and sobriety.
On one hand, we must resist the temptation to sensationalize the Global DNA findings and spread panic-inducing narratives that "most men are raising other men's children."
That is a distortion of what the statistics truly reveal.
On the other hand, we must recognize that cases of misattributed paternity, however frequent or rare, represent a serious injustice and a breach of trust that society cannot ignore.
The way forward, therefore, is to confront the issue of paternity with open eyes and clear minds.
Properly contextualized statistics should inform our policies, not mislead them.
Compulsory DNA testing, far from being a punitive measure against women, should be embraced as a long-term solution that protects men, women, and children alike from the corrosive effects of deceit, doubt, and dispute.
In doing so, Zimbabwe would not only settle questions of paternity fairly and conclusively but also lay a firmer foundation for the integrity and stability of family life.
Only with this level of clarity and honesty can we ensure that the bond between father and child rests on truth, trust, and certainty—rather than suspicion, deception, or statistical misinterpretation.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
