‘Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal’ 19 April 2021

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 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.

… Experts have raised concerns that Pfizer and some other big pharma companies have demanded complete confidentiality during the recent vaccine negotiations, which would prevent the public from knowing about issues including indemnity protection and price. In South Africa, there are fears that any such secrecy clauses could undo public trust built up by years of anti-corruption work… “When contracts are negotiated in secret, companies have the power to dictate the terms. And I think what we’re seeing here is that transparency — when contracts with other countries have been made public — has improved that balance and created a bit more of a level playing field.”