OWN CORRESPONDENT, Pretoria| Tuesday
THE Pretoria High Court on Tuesday came out against the indefinite postponement of an application by pharmaceutical companies challenging legislation that provides for the importation of cheap generic drugs to South Africa.
Putting off the case for four months – as requested by the companies – was out of the question, presiding Judge Bernard Ngoepe said.
He indicated that he would, at most, grant a postponement of a few days.
Fanie Cilliers, SC, for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Association (PMA) earlier contended his clients would be prejudiced if a lengthy postponement was not granted.
Ngoepe adjourned the court until 2pm to discuss the matter with counsel in his chambers.
The PMA, on behalf of about 40 local and international pharmaceutical companies, is asking the court to declare the Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act of 1997 unconstitutional and to prevent it from being enforced.
Cilliers on Tuesday said his request for a postponement was prompted by the involvement of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) in the case.
He contended that TAC was introducing new aspects to the case. The PMA would need time for research in reply.
TAC gave notice in late January that it intended becoming a party to the court action.
At the start of proceedings on Monday, Cilliers opposed the joining of TAC, and Aids lobby group, as a friend of the court in support of the government.
After Cilliers asked for time to consult his clients on the matter, Ngoepe ruled that the application should continue in the meantime as if TAC had been allowed to join.
On Tuesday morning, Cilliers told the court that a “massive response” would be required to respond to the matters raised by TAC. The late-joining of TAC would be to blame should the court opt not to exclude the lobby group from the case.
“This is not our fault,” Cilliers said.
Matthew Chaskalson, for TAC, said it would be untenable to dismiss his client from the case. The PMA could not be granted indefinite opportunity to “scour around” for evidence in response to the points raised by TAC, he argued.
MTK Moerane, SC, for the government, suggested that the PMA was uncomfortable about the issue of drug pricing raised by TAC, and accused the association of ducking this issue. The PMA had had months to explain how it arrived at prices, he argued.
Whatever the pharmaceutical companies said, the case was about the cost of medicine, not about the constitutionality of the legislation.
“They can’t fool me,” Moerane said.
The court then adjourned for about 30 minutes for Cilliers to consult his clients on how much time they would need to respond to TAC’s affidavit. When proceedings resumed, Cilliers said his clients would need at least four months.
“That’s the best I can do. This is a very big issue,” Cilliers told the court.
ZA*NOW:
Aids sufferers, poor eye landmark case March 6, 2001
Power cuts delay Aids drugs trial March 5, 2001
Patients vs profits as drug wars start March 5, 2000
State, drug giants go head to head March 4, 2000