A court application aimed at barring the government from continuing to distribute Covid-19 vaccines has been dismissed with costs.
This comes after the Pretoria High Court declared recently that the application failed on various grounds, including a lack of sufficient evidence and an attempted breach of the separation of powers.
The three non-profit organisations (NPO) — Covid Care Alliance, Transformative Health Justice, and Free the Children-Save the Nation — alleged that people experience strange medical conditions after vaccinating.
Cease and desist
The NPOs wanted to compel President Cyril Ramaphosa, Health Minister, Dr Joe Phaahla, and various organs of the state to cease and desist from making the Covid-19 vaccines available.
The NPOs had alleged that the vaccines were resulting in the deaths of otherwise healthy people after being injected. They further alleged that there was an appearance of unexplained substances in the blood of vaccinated people.
“The otherwise healthy young people who, after being injected with the Covid-19 vaccines in South Africa, display symptoms of myocarditis,” said the applicants.
“Rare blood cloths are being witnessed by pathologists in the veins and arteries of vaccinated people in South Africa.”
The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) tabled an affidavit in court to guarantee that drugs and vaccines do not harm the public.
“SAHPRA was required, together with other responsible organs of state, to comply with the obligations imposed by Section 27 of the constitution, which includes the duty to ensure that available medicines meet the requisite standards of safety, therapeutic efficacy, and quality,” it said.
SAPHRA stated that this duty in respect of Covid-19 vaccines was not a trivial one.
“SAPHRA mentioned that its approach was supported by evidence from other regulatory authorities, such as the World Health Organisation, the European Medicines Agency, and the United States Food and Drug Administration.”
Accusations are unfounded
The respondents argued that the NPOs’ application was unmeritorious and the accusations were unfounded before they claimed a costs order in their favour.
However, the NPOs claimed that they acted out of care and concern for members of the public, including minors.
Handing down the judgment, Judge Norman Davis said the application has ventilated issues that have been in the public domain and that may have concerned a large number of members of the public.
“While I agree with many of the accusations levelled against the applicants’ deponents by the respondents, I still gained the impression that there may be a large number of the applicants’ members who might be anti-vaxxers out of genuine concern,” said Davis.
“However, the applicants should have foreseen the extent of the litigation and the justification of the employment of multiple advocates, including senior counsel.
“This should be reflected in the cost order.”
