Originally South Africa #5 >>13481113
“Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal” – Part 1-https://mg.co.za/coronavirus-essentials/2021-04-19-pfizer-backs-down-over-unreasonable-terms-in-south-africa-vaccine-deal/
Pfizer has backed down over its controversial demand that the South African government put up sovereign assets guaranteeing an indemnity against the cost of any future legal cases, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.
During Covid-19 vaccine negotiations, the company sought indemnity against civil claims from citizens who had experienced adverse vaccine effects — meaning that the government would have to cover the costs instead.
On Wednesday, South African Health Minister Zweli Mkhize, voiced frustrations about “difficult and sometimes unreasonable” terms his country’s government had been presented with during contract negotiations with vaccine manufacturers, including Pfizer.
In a briefing letter sent ahead of his appearance at the parliamentary health committee, Mkhize said one condition in particular demanded by Pfizer was “too risky” — that the country put up sovereign assets as potential collateral.
Internationally Pfizer wanted indemnity
In its negotiations to provide vaccines to countries worldwide, Pfizer has asked governments for wide-ranging indemnity protection against any civil claims a citizen might file.
This means that if Pfizer were to be sued by someone who had suffered a rare adverse effect from the vaccine, then the government, not the company, would have to pay for legal costs and compensation. This would apply even if the case were brought due to the company’s own acts of negligence, fraud or malice.
In other negotiations, Pfizer went further. The company required some Latin American governments to put up sovereign assets, including federal bank reserves, embassy buildings or military bases — as a guarantee against indemnifying the cost of future legal cases. This was reported by the Bureau in February and picked up by more than 25 media organisations worldwide.
Pfizer told the Bureau: “Pfizer and BioNTech have no intention of interfering with any country’s diplomatic, military, or culturally significant assets.”
Unredacted draft contracts between Pfizer and the Dominican Republic, Albania and Peru show that the company sought to be indemnified against problems at any step of the supply chain — including packaging, manufacturing and storage. Experts told the Bureau it was “unreasonable” to require governments to pick up the bill for any negligence by Pfizer.
In South Africa’s case, Mkhize said the clauses “posed a potential risk to our assets and fiscus [public purse]”. He described how Pfizer’s late demand caused delays in the discussions, which in turn put back the anticipated vaccine-delivery dates.
Mkhize wrote that the government was “relieved” when Pfizer eventually conceded and removed the “problematic term”. He added: “As the government, we found ourselves in a precarious position of having to choose between saving our citizens’ lives and risking putting the country’s assets into private companies’ hands.”