Social media users are having a good laugh over a video where a traditional chief is seen determining a paternal DNA with his mere sight by checking palm markings.
In the video that has since gone viral, two men, a woman and her child are seen kneeling before a chief who commands them to present their inner palms. The chief then matches the child’s inner palm markings to the other man – probably the woman’s lover – and concludes he is the father.
Watch the video below;
Tinashe Mugabe please help this chief .
Achauraya dzimba pic.twitter.com/axaB1cbnvs
— MUZVINAMUSHONGA (@gkarani1) January 30, 2023
This comes after Tinashe Mugabe’s controversial but wildly popular show, The Closure DNA Show, won a massive victory when the High Court quashed an attempt to ban and shut down the show.
The show is known for scientifically settling paternal DNA disagreements
The High Court made the ruling for the show to continue broadcasting after the Health Professions Authority of Zimbabwe banned it, arguing that Mugabe was not professionally qualified nor competent to issue DNA test results.
The health authorities also argued that the Global DNA Diagnostic Centre was not a registered member of The Medical Laboratory & Clinical Scientists Council of Zimbabwe and the Health Professional Councils in Zimbabwe.
However, Mugabe argued that the Health Professions Authority of Zimbabwe and the Medical Laboratory and Clinical Scientists Council of Zimbabwe had no right to suspend his operations because his company is not a medical entity and is not governed by their rules and regulations.
High Court judge Justice Joseph Mafusire ruled in favour of Mugabe, noting that the organisation was not a health institution in terms of the Health Professions Act.
“The conclusion reached in this judgment, that the applicant is not a health institution within the meaning of that term in the Act, puts paid to any other point of contention in this matter.”
“It may well be that the applicant’s activities require proper regulation. But if there should exist some other law providing for such regulation, it has not been pointed out in this court. The Act is certainly not such law. The applicant is entitled to the main relief prayed for, namely that it is not a health institution within the meaning of the Act.”