FASA (the Freedom Alliance of South Africa, AD) has approached the High Court in Pretoria, South Africa, to review and set aside the authorisation of Pfizer’s vaccine products on the basis that the authorisation was irrational and unlawful. If successful this will result in the removal of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines from the domestic market. The case is under the custodianship of Advocate Erin-Dianne Richards, briefed by Daniel Eloff of Hurter Spies. The lawyers explain the significance of the case: “FASA’s aim is to subject the South African regulator’s decision to judicial scrutiny. They argue that the regulator’s decision was based on flawed and inaccurate trial data analysis presented by a heavily conflicted Pfizer, and that it is therefore legally invalid. Their aim is not only to ensure legal compliance – but to set precedent requiring a higher level of statutory scrutiny in the case of future vaccine authorisations in the interest of public health. Whatever the decision of the Court, this case is important. While it has arguably been possible to suppress and distort facts in the public narrative either for or against the vaccines, this will not be possible before our Courts. This case will see a full ventilation of all relevant facts pertaining to South Africa’s authorisation of the Pfizer vaccines.”
Dr Aseem Malhotra (@DrAseemMalhotra), eminent UK cardiologist, in a tweet ( https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1641322215143530497 )
See also https://theprint.in/world/british-indian-medic-backs-legal-review-of-covid-vaccine-in-south-africa-high-court/1482252/
The application was lodged on 23 March 2023.
My take on it
Dr Malhotra, who is a co-applicant, recognises that that this case has significance beyond South Africa:
“South Africa’s Constitution and its Constitutional jurisprudence has motivated, inspired and led the World. My personal hope is that here, too, the South African judiciary will lead the way towards a global rectification of a serious injustice.”
I share his hope, and I pray that it is so. To date it would seem to me that courts in other jurisdictions have flown in the face of reason to find ways of avoiding “a full ventilation of the facts”.
But Why ?