Lerato Mbhiza
The Health Justice Initiative on Tuesday labeled the contracts the government signed with pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic as one-sided and unethical.
The non-profit organisation said the country was bullied into signing away its sovereignty.
The Health Justice Initiative (HJI) is a non-governmental organisation that took the government to court to force it to publicise the contents of the contracts it got into with pharmaceuticals to obtain Covid-19 vaccines.
In August, the High Court in Pretoria ordered the government to provide access to its Covid-19 vaccine procurement contracts. The contracts were uploaded on the HJI website on Tuesday and they showed that the country overpaid the vaccine manufacturer by a staggering amount.
South Africa was liable for payments of at least $734 million, including advance payments of almost $95 million, with no guarantees of timely delivery.
J&J charged South Africa $10 (R190) a dose, 15 percent more than the European Union (EU) and 25 percent more than the estimated not-for-profit price.
Pfizer’s charge to South Africa was $10 a dose, 32.5% more than the $6.75 (R128) ‘cost price’ it reportedly charged the African Union. The SII charged South Africa $5.35 (R101) a dose, 2.5 times more than it charged the EU.
The HJI’s Fatima Hassan said the terms and conditions of the contracts were overwhelmingly in favour of multinational corporations.
“The contracts reveal punitive, one-sided conditions so that South Africa was forced to hand over sovereignty, with none of the contracts agreed under South African legal jurisdiction. For example, the agreement between US-based Johnson & Johnson and the South African government was conducted under English and Welsh law”.
Hassan said this is not a problem that could be solved by a single government but requires a regional and global solution.
“The fear of pharmaceutical companies, in the middle of this pandemic, has to be at a global level. At a minimum, there should be an investigation into Johnson and Johnson in the way it managed to extract a restriction on export bans in other parts of the world, but we were not allowed to do that.
“We are calling for governments in the global south as well as the board and the very wealthy shareholders of at least Serum, Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer and Gavi, to take the necessary steps to ensure that this type of bullying and extreme non-disclosure are not repeated in the next pandemic. We really need open procurement processes, not secretive ransom negotiations,” said Hassan.
Director at Global Justice Now, a UK-based organisation campaigning on issues of global justice and development in the Global South, Nick Dearden, said South Africa was charged more for vaccines than the wealthiest countries on the planet.
Dearden said that the contract signed by South African was unethical and should not have been allowed.
Professor Matthew Herder, from Dalhousie Health Law Institute in Canada, said the Pfizer contract contains none of the public interest measures that are contained in some UK and EU vaccine agreements.
He said the language provision was far more in the pharmaceutical company’s favour.
“The South African government is prohibited from sharing doses to neighbouring countries without Pfizer’s consent. Unlike other procurement contracts, Pfizer can withhold its consent for however long it sees fit and for whatever reason it chooses,” said Herder.
“The contract also doesn’t guarantee that Pfizer will actually deliver any vaccines to South Africa, and in the event that they do not deliver, the most the South African government can receive is the 50% payment of the advance payment they were required to make under the contract.”
INSIDE POLITICS
