Covid vaccine dissidents’ case dismissed
Matter dead in the water before merits heard
The Health Defence League, as the anti-vaccine group called itself, has been ordered to pay the respondents' legal costs.
Before the Health Defence League's (HDL) case against the government regarding the administration of Covid-19 vaccines could be heard on merits, the matter was struck from the roll yesterday.
The Windhoek High Court found that Dr Martin Wucher was not authorised to act on behalf of the HDL in the court application and that the other applicants - Monika Ruppel, Manfred Förtsch, Werner Gertz and Paul du Plessis - could not prove that they are ‘wronged persons’ who are entitled to the claims requested in the application.
In its application, the HDL demanded that the health ministry disclose the information it relied on in its decision that the Covid-19 vaccines are "effective and safe". It also wanted to know the source of this information.
The HDL’s application further requested that the administration of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines be declared illegal and government's requirement that disclaimer forms be signed before a Covid-19 vaccine is administered also be declared illegal.
The respondents opposed the case and argued that the HDL does not have the locus standi – the right or competence - to bring the case to court. They further argued that the HDL failed to involve the manufacturers of the vaccines in the case. According to them, this is important because the manufacturers have a direct interest in the outcome.
During pre-trial proceedings, the parties agreed that these two issues must be addressed before the case can be heard on merits.
Not authorised
In his ruling, Judge Hosea Angula pointed out that a person must prove that he/she has the authority to bring an application to court.
In the case where it is not a person, but rather an organisation, company or other entity, a person must be able to prove that they are authorised to represent the entity.
"Taking into account the provisions of the [HDL’s] constitution, the executive committee was authorised to accept Wucher to act on behalf of the applicant and not the steering committee," Angula found, meaning that Wucher could not bring the application on behalf of the HDL.
Angula further found that the other four applicants failed to prove that they have a legal right to the legal aid claimed in the application.
"They have not proven that they are wronged persons. It therefore follows that the second to fifth applicants have failed to prove that they have the procedural locus standi which entitles them to the relief sought in the notice of motion,” his ruling read.
Angula consequently dismissed the HDL's application and ordered it to pay the respondents' legal costs.
The respondents included the health ministry, the government, the president, the attorney-general as well as the Namibia Medicines Regulatory Council.
Insufficient information
Regarding the merits of the court application, the HDL claimed that insufficient information was provided about Covid-19 vaccines and their potential side effects for a recipient to make an informed decision about consenting to vaccination.
Based on this, the HDL demanded that the indemnity forms signed by vaccinated individuals be set aside.
The HDL wanted the government to release the information relied on for campaigns that told the public that the Covid-19 vaccine was "safe and effective" for people with chronic illnesses and that the vaccines helped prevent serious illness, hospitalisation and deaths due to Covid-19.
However, the respondents said the information requested by [the HDL] is already publicly available in published documents by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the ministry. "Some of the information sought by [the HDL] relates to information provided by the manufacturers to the registrar of medicines to determine whether an exemption should be granted and such information includes trade secrets of the manufacturers."
Illegally administered
The HDL also alleged that the Pfizer vaccine was illegally administered in the country.
The ministry admitted in a statement that the Pfizer vaccine was not registered or exempted in terms of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, and that it was recommended for children between the ages of 12 and 17.
"The Pfizer vaccine was recommended for emergency use based on approval by the WHO's pre-qualifications and documentation provided," the ministry said.
– [email protected]
The Windhoek High Court found that Dr Martin Wucher was not authorised to act on behalf of the HDL in the court application and that the other applicants - Monika Ruppel, Manfred Förtsch, Werner Gertz and Paul du Plessis - could not prove that they are ‘wronged persons’ who are entitled to the claims requested in the application.
In its application, the HDL demanded that the health ministry disclose the information it relied on in its decision that the Covid-19 vaccines are "effective and safe". It also wanted to know the source of this information.
The HDL’s application further requested that the administration of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines be declared illegal and government's requirement that disclaimer forms be signed before a Covid-19 vaccine is administered also be declared illegal.
The respondents opposed the case and argued that the HDL does not have the locus standi – the right or competence - to bring the case to court. They further argued that the HDL failed to involve the manufacturers of the vaccines in the case. According to them, this is important because the manufacturers have a direct interest in the outcome.
During pre-trial proceedings, the parties agreed that these two issues must be addressed before the case can be heard on merits.
Not authorised
In his ruling, Judge Hosea Angula pointed out that a person must prove that he/she has the authority to bring an application to court.
In the case where it is not a person, but rather an organisation, company or other entity, a person must be able to prove that they are authorised to represent the entity.
"Taking into account the provisions of the [HDL’s] constitution, the executive committee was authorised to accept Wucher to act on behalf of the applicant and not the steering committee," Angula found, meaning that Wucher could not bring the application on behalf of the HDL.
Angula further found that the other four applicants failed to prove that they have a legal right to the legal aid claimed in the application.
"They have not proven that they are wronged persons. It therefore follows that the second to fifth applicants have failed to prove that they have the procedural locus standi which entitles them to the relief sought in the notice of motion,” his ruling read.
Angula consequently dismissed the HDL's application and ordered it to pay the respondents' legal costs.
The respondents included the health ministry, the government, the president, the attorney-general as well as the Namibia Medicines Regulatory Council.
Insufficient information
Regarding the merits of the court application, the HDL claimed that insufficient information was provided about Covid-19 vaccines and their potential side effects for a recipient to make an informed decision about consenting to vaccination.
Based on this, the HDL demanded that the indemnity forms signed by vaccinated individuals be set aside.
The HDL wanted the government to release the information relied on for campaigns that told the public that the Covid-19 vaccine was "safe and effective" for people with chronic illnesses and that the vaccines helped prevent serious illness, hospitalisation and deaths due to Covid-19.
However, the respondents said the information requested by [the HDL] is already publicly available in published documents by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the ministry. "Some of the information sought by [the HDL] relates to information provided by the manufacturers to the registrar of medicines to determine whether an exemption should be granted and such information includes trade secrets of the manufacturers."
Illegally administered
The HDL also alleged that the Pfizer vaccine was illegally administered in the country.
The ministry admitted in a statement that the Pfizer vaccine was not registered or exempted in terms of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, and that it was recommended for children between the ages of 12 and 17.
"The Pfizer vaccine was recommended for emergency use based on approval by the WHO's pre-qualifications and documentation provided," the ministry said.
– [email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article