THE COMPLAINANT

This is an archive of the Treatment Action Campaign's public documents from December 1998 until October 2008. I created this website because the TAC's website appears unmaintained and people were concerned that it
was becoming increasingly hard to find important documents.

The menu items have been slightly edited and a new stylesheet applied to the site. But none of the documents have been edited, not even for minor errors. The text appears on this site as obtained from the Internet Archive.

The period covered by the archive encompassed the campaign for HIV medicines, the civil disobedience campaigns, the Competition Commission complaints, the 2008 xenophobic violence and the PMTCT, Khayelitsha health workers and Matthias Rath court cases.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

CASE NO. 2807/05

In the application of:

TRADITIONAL HEALERS ORGANIZATION

In the matter of an intervening application to be joined as Third Respondent in:

TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN Applicant

and

MATTHIAS DR RATH HEALTH FOUNDATION First Respondent

MATTHIAS RATHDR RATH HEALTH FOUNDATION Second Respondent

________________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT IN ANSWER TO APPLICATION TO INTERVENEREPLY

________________________________________________________________

I, the undersigned

ABDURRAZACK "ZACKIE" ACHMAT

hereby affirm and say:

I am the national chairperson of the Treatment Action Campaign ("TAC"). I and as such have deposed the founding and replying affidavits in this matter.
I have read the affidavit of Phephsile Maseko (Maseko) on behalf of filed for the Traditional Healers’ Organisation ("THO") in that organisation’s application to intervenebe joined as respondents in this matter.
The TAC disputes the claim of the THO that it is an interested party in this matter. However, the TAC has no objection to the THO’s intervening in these proceedings on condition that it does not seek to file further affidavits, which will lead to a delay in the hearing of what is an urgent application.
As the THO’s legal representatives have indicated that their client will not seek to file further affidavits, the TAC will therefore not object to the THO being given leave to intervene, even though it is our contention that they are not entitled to do so.
I have been advised that under the circumstances, it is not necessary for the TAC to file any affidavit in this interlocutory application.
I submit that most of the allegations made by Maseko are in any event irrelevant to the matter before the Court.
However, the TAC wishes for the record to deal briefly with certain of the allegations made by Maseko.
The facts stated herein are, unless the context indicates otherwise, within my personal knowledge, and to the best of my knowledge and belief are true and correct.
I respectfully submit that the efficacy and appropriate regulation of traditional healers and medicines is not relevant to these proceedings. The TAC believes that these questions are important and complex, and deserve further public debate in an appropriate forum.
The THO appears to assert, in effect, that a justification for publishing defamatory statements about the TAC is that TAC does not recognise traditional healers and their medicines. This claim about TAC is incorrect. Even if it were true, it would not justify the publication of false and defamatory statements.
For the record, however, I restate TAC’s position on traditional healers and their medicines, which is as follows:
1. Traditional healers and their medicines play an important place in the lives of millions of people.
2. Under colonialism, apartheid and in the post-colonial period, traditional healers and their medicines were suppressed and denied registration, recognition and development.
3. This has resulted in the under-development of traditional healers, their knowledge and medicines.
4. The lack of an intellectual property framework that protects communities against biopiracy means that secrecy rather than the public sharing of knowledge characterises the uses of traditional medicines.
5. The legal framework that the government has established to register practising traditional healers in the Traditional Health Practitioners Bill will go some way to protect the public and the profession.
6. The centuries of under-development require major public investment in training of healers, and research into the safety, efficacy and quality of traditional medicines.
7. In general, the TAC will only promote medicines that are registered with the Medicines Control Council ("MCC"), or allowed under the MCC’s section 21 authorisation. This is because the MCC is the public authority tasked with ensuring the safety, efficacy and quality of medicines. It is conceivable that TAC could promote medicines not registered by the MCC, but this would be unusual and require exceptional and compelling evidence. We understand that the THO might differ with TAC on this point, but this is a basis for engaging in public debate, not for a campaign of defamation.
8. There is not yet a list of traditional medicines equivalent to the Essential Drug List of the National Department of Health or or for instance, the Guidelines for the management and Treatment of HIV/AIDS related opportunistic infections.
9. The TAC therefore supports measures to develop, modernise, regulate and invest in traditional healers and traditional medicines, in the public interest.
10. This position has been made known to the THO and all interested parties at numerous TAC events.
I attach as ZAR1 a copy of the most recent issue of our publication "Equal Treatment", which shows the respect we accord traditional healers and the need for the modernisation of the training and research of traditional health practitioners.
It is disappointing, to say the least, that the THO affidavit does not contain any acknowledgment that this has been the position of TAC on some of the matters THO raises as to the place of traditional medicines and healers in public health provision in South Africa.
I now respond to certain of the allegations made by Maseko. Having regard to the fact that the TAC does not oppose the intervention of the THO, on condition that this does not lead to any further delay in the hearing of the matter, and having further regard to the irrelevance of much of this affidavit to the issues in disputes in this matter, I do not reply to each and every allegation made by Maseko.

Ad paragraph 9
I respectfully draw the Court’s attention to what is actually stated in the annexed World Health Organisation material, in particular as to questions of safety and efficacy.

Ad paragraph 10
The TAC disputes the utility or soundness of the deponent’s characterisation of medicines as ‘Western’ or ‘non-western’. What is relevant is whether the medicine (whatever its geographic origin) is tested and found by the relevant authorities to be safe and effective for its intended application.

Ad paragraphs 15, 16 and 17
The THO misstates and misrepresents the intellectual property regime in South Africa and internationally in relation to traditional medicines.
Divining and other forms of spiritual and psychological healing cannot be patented, but traditional remedies and compounds derived from them can be and often are patented.
The San communities of the Kalahari were nearly dispossessed of the active ingredient of the Hoodia patented by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research as compound "P57", and sold to multinational pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer Inc. Only an international public outcry and the threat of litigation won a settlement for the San communities of South Africa.
Traditional compounds can be patented by individuals or companies. The law fails adequately to protect community-based knowledge. Individual traditional healers can also patent traditional remedies.
The first respondent (Mathias Rath) himself and the organisations he controls, hold at least 5 patents in the United States on their ‘medicines’. These are patent numbers: 6693129, 6686340, 5650418, 5278189, 5230996. The US Patent and Trademark Office Internet documents (last accessed 5 May 2005) demonstrating this are attached as ZAR2.
I dispute Maseko’s characterisation of the intention or effect of the proposed medicines registration regulations. The proposed regulations would not have banned traditional medicines, but only prohibited the making of unsubstantiated claims to an unsuspecting public.
TAC supports proper research by the State to test the safety and efficacy of these substances, and to develop an appropriate intellectual property regime that might benefit the communities having knowledge about these substances should they prove safe and effective.

Ad paragraphs 19 and 23
This is a mischaracterisation of the TAC’s mission. The TAC’s consistent concern is with the safety, efficacy and quality of all medicines, and with the accessibility and affordability of healthcare services generally, including in relation to the need for proper informed patient consent to treatment.
The assertion in paragraph 19 of the TAC’s allegiance to pharmaceutical companies is false. It is defamatory of the TAC.

Ad paragraph 20
This paragraph is deeply ironic, since the Rath respondents can be characterised as foreign-based manufacturers and/or suppliers of synthetic ‘Western’ pharmaceutical products at great prices.

Ad paragraphs 21 to 33
Individuals from the THO have been active in the TAC. Like many other organisations, the THO has endorsed the work of the TAC. We regret their withdrawal and dissatisfaction with our approach to informed consent, explaining the benefits and risks of all medicines based on scientific evidence. However, this will not stop TAC from working with individual traditional healers and other organisations.
The nature of the THO’s past relationship with the TAC is not relevant to the defamatory statements made by the Rath respondents, which are the subject of these proceedings. I dispute the correctness of Maseko’s account of the history and nature of that relationship. In order to avoid further burdening the record with irrelevant and lengthy factual disputes, I do not go into this history in any detail.
Three TAC national executive committee members attended the workshop referred to in paragraph 26. The TAC delegation included Mark Heywood (TAC treasurer), Mr Luyanda Ngonyama (then representative of the religious sector) and Isaac Skosana (representative of people living with HIV/AIDS on the TAC executive).
The TAC contributed R5000 to the workshop, which was addressed by the country representative of the WHO and a representative of the Medical Research Council.
Paragraph 28 is a mischaracterisation of what actually happened. The TAC was one of four organisations co-hosting the event, which was widely advertised. Most non-TAC delegates and delegations were not specifically invited. Most of them asked to attend as a result of the public announcement of the event by TAC. Any organisation that notified TAC or others of its attendance was accepted. I am not aware that the THO sought to attend the meeting. They would have not have been denied the opportunity to participate.
The THO are entitled to picket and to hold the views that they do about antiretrovirals. However, they do not have a right to defame anyone. I deny the correctness of the contents of their memorandum. To respond to the memorandum would require an extensive affidavit, with annexures, dealing with matters which are not relevant to these proceedings.
Paragraph 32 is a repetition of the defamation which is the subject matter of these proceedings. I have already dealt with this in detail in the papers in the main application.

Ad paragraph 35 and 36
I deny that the THO has any legal interest in these proceedings. However, as I have stated above the TAC has no objection to the intervention of the THO provided that it does not lead to a further delay in the hearing of the matter.

Ad paragraph 37
The TAC has a history of disagreement over strategy, tactics, accountability and corruption with the national leaders of NAPWA. We are not surprised that they should support the Respondents.
.
In the light of the issues in dispute in this matter, the fact that the THO makes common cause with NAPWA is deeply ironic. According to a press release issued by drug company, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), NAPWA received US$1.1 million from BMS. I attach as annexure ZAR3 a press statement by BMS of 7 May 2004, stating that "A separate grant of $1.1 million was disbursed to the National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS (NAPWA) to build institutional capacity, mobilize communities and provide treatment literacy among its membership."
NAPWA’s website states "NAPWA alongside Secure the Future are in preparations to launch a pilot Community Based Treatment Support Programme in Gauteng." "Secure the Future" is a programme of Bristol-Myers Squibb.
The TAC does not allege that NAPWA’s receipt of funds from drug companies makes it a drug company front. NAPWA no doubt has its own reasons for accepting such funds. The TAC debated its stand on refusing drug company funding with NAPWA leaders at our first national congress in Soweto in March 2001. I was present during these discussions. I stated the TAC’s position that it would not accept money sourced from drug companies.

_______________________________

ABDURRAZACK "ZACKIE" ACHMAT

SIGNED AND AFFIRMED BEFORE ME IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS DAY OF MAY 2005, THE DEPONENT HAVING STATED THAT HE HAS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS TO TAKING THE OATH AND THAT HE REGARDS THE AFFIRMATION AS BINDING ON HIS CONSCIENCE.

________________________

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS

Unless otherwise indicated in the present affidavit, I deny the truth or accuracy of the claims made by Maseko in her affidavit ("the THO affidavit").

What follows are certain general points, followed by a response to the paragraphs of the THO affidavit.

TAC does not oppose THO’s application to join on condition that no further delays are countenanced or extraneous evidence is introduced.

The TAC will not oppose the THO’s application to be joined as a respondent in this matter, on the following conditions:

The THO does not seek to burden the record or delay the proceedings.

The TAC will request that the Court only admit evidence relevant to claims against the Respondents, now including the THO, in the Founding Affidavit and set out in the Notice of Motion.

Should the THO not agree to these conditions, the TAC will advise its representatives to ask the Court to make an order that the joinder of the THO is subject to the above condition and that they carry the costs of the application.

I consider much of the material put forward and the allegations made in the THO affidavit (even if they were true) to be irrelevant to the matter before the Court, as set out in the Notice of Motion.

This is not the forum to discuss the role of traditional healing

I briefly re-state (below) TAC’s position on traditional healers and medicines for the record. As this will show, we believe that the THO affidavit raises some important and complex issues that deserve further public debate but this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion.

Many of the important and complex issues raised or touched on in the THO affidavit are entirely irrelevant to the issue on which the THO seeks to That issue is what we consider the unlawful, false, inciting and defamatory statements made about TAC by the Rath respondents

Other general statements on THO’s application and affidavit

I wish to record that, while the THO’s name appeared on certain of the publications being complained of, TAC instructed its representatives not to cite the THO as a respondent in its request for interim relief.

The first reason for this is that TAC considers that the first and second respondents (and Anthony Brink) are best capable of characterisation as multinational industrial producers and promoters of synthetic substances, for commercial gain. As such, we did not wish to assume that the THO would identify with the agenda, misinformation and motives of the Rath respondents. These allegations were not denied by them nor are they denied by the THO in its affidavit.

The second reason for this is that TAC considers the Rath respondents and Anthony Brink to be (for reasons related to the commercial promotion of their products, something which has not been denied) effectively in denial of the overwhelming national and international scientific, medical and political consensus over proven and effective prevention and treatments for the HIV/AIDS epidemic that threatens the lives, health and well-being of millions of South Africans.

As such, we did not wish to assume that the THO (whose practising members no doubt consider themselves likewise to be, by vocation or profession, interested in the health of people in South Africa) would wish to identify itself with the untenable position of the Rath respondents on the treatment of HIV/AIDS, nor the profit motive that underlies and informs this position.

We also wish to record that TAC would have been interested to resolve any grievance that the THO felt if might have had, consistent with our publicly-available position on traditional healers and medicines (see below).

However, since THO have now opted to join the matter as respondents, TAC will be instructing its counsel to seek monetary damages and other relief, including costs orders, against the THO, for its defamation of TAC.

A defence of the THO for spreading publishing defamatory statements about the TAC seems to be that TAC does not recognise traditional healers and their medicines. This claim about TAC is incorrect, but even if it were true it is an inadequate defence for publishing false and defamatory statements.

TAC’S POSITION ON TRADITIONAL MEDICINES AND HEALERS

The position of the TAC on traditional medicines and healers (including in relation to treatment of HIV/AIDS and related infections) is:

Traditional healers and their medicines play an important place in the lives of millions of people.

Under colonialism, apartheid and in the post-colonial period, traditional healers and their medicines were suppressed and denied registration, recognition and development.

This has resulted in the under-development of traditional healers, their knowledge and medicines.

The lack of an intellectual property framework that protects communities against biopiracy means that secrecy rather than the public sharing of knowledge characterises the uses of traditional medicines.

The legal framework that the government has established to register practising traditional healers in the Traditional Health Practitioners Act XXX will go some way to protect the public and the profession.

But, centuries of under-development requires major public investment in training of healers, and, research into the safety, efficacy and quality of traditional medicines.

The TAC, in general, can only promote medicines that are registered with the Medicines Control Council ("MCC"), or allowed under the MCC’s section 21 authorisation. This is because the MCC is the public authority tasked with ensuring the safety, efficacy and quality of medicines. It is conceivable that TAC could promote medicines not registered by the MCC, but this would be unusual and require exceptional compelling evidence. We understand that the THO might differ with TAC on this point, but this is a basis for engaging in public debate not in a malicious defamation campaign.

There is not yet an equivalent list of traditional medicines to the Essential Drug List of the National Department of Health or Guidelines for the management and Treatment of HIV/AIDS related opportunistic infections.

Therefore TAC supports measures to develop, modernise, regulate and invest in traditional healers and traditional medicines in the public interest.

The above position has been made known to the THO and all interested parties at numerous TAC events.

Attached as ZA[?? next number on list from founding and reply affid] is a copy of the most recent issue of our publication "Equal Treatment" which shows the respect we accord traditional healers and the need for the modernisation of the training and research of traditional health practitioners.

It is disappointing, at very least, that the THO affidavit does not contain any acknowledgment that this has been the position of TAC on some of the matters THO raises as to the place of traditional medicines and healers in public health provision in South Africa.

Having said this, many of the matters raised by THO are (while perhaps worthy of debate) irrelevant to the defamation case to which it will become a respondent.

Response to THO affidavit by paragraph

Ad paragraph 1

We admit this.

Ad paragraph 2

We note that the THO is a company. The deponent has not provided any evidence to the THO’s registration under the Companies Act. The manner of operation of the THO is unknown to us. We do not have access to the THO’s financial records.

We do not therefore have access to any audited financial records of the THO in order to make it possible for us to decide whether to seek to pursue an order for costs against the THO on the same scale as will be sought against the Rath respondents.

Ad paragraph 3

We note the contents of the attachment referred to. However, TAC has no knowledge of the operation or procedures to authorise action in the THO.

Ad paragraph 4

We dispute that these ‘facts’ are true and correct.

Ad paragraph 5, 6, 7

The THO has an interest to join these proceedings because it is a party to the publication of defamatory statements.

We do not deny that the THO is one of the important traditional healers organisations in South Africa. But, we have no knowledge of the membership database of the THO.

Ad paragraph 7

We have no knowledge of whether this is true; no evidence is offered to support it. We deal with the last point of para [7] in more detail, below.

Ad paragraph 8

We note this. We do not however agree that traditional medicine and practice have ‘evolved’ – they have, in TAC’s view, for the most part been stymied and prevented from flourishing during the colonial, apartheid and post-apartheid eras, by lack of research and development, support and recognition.

Ad paragraph 9

We draw the Court’s attention to what is actually stated in the World Health Organisation material annexed by this paragraph, in particular as to safety and efficacy matters.

Ad paragraph 10

We will ask the Court to strike out the figure (220 000) as highly speculative, until any statute-based registration procedure has been conducted.

We would dispute the utility or soundness of the deponent’s characterisation of medicines as ‘Western’ or ‘non-western’ – what is relevant is whether the medicine (whatever its geographic origin) is tested and found by the relevant authorities to be safe and effective for its respective application.

Ad paragraph 11

TAC does not disparage traditional healers in this way. However, it is conceivable that many reasonable but uninformed people might hold the opinion described in this paragraph.

Ad paragraphs 12, 13 & 14

We note but do not admit these matters. These represent THO’s opinion and are not evidence. Paragraph [14] is a wide generalisation which we do not admit.

Ad paragraph 15 and 17

The THO misrepresents the intellectual property regime in South Africa and internationally related to traditional medicines.

Divining and other forms of spiritual and psychological healing cannot be patented but traditional remedies and compounds derived from them can be patented.

Attached are two articles (ZA.. & ZA..) that describes how the San communities of the Kalahari were nearly dispossessed of the active ingredient of the Hoodia patented by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research as compound "P57" and sold to multinational pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer Inc. Only an international public outcry and the threat of a lawsuit won a settlement for the San communities of South Africa. Traditional compounds can be patented by individuals or companies. The law fails to protect community-based knowledge. Individual traditional healers can patent traditional remedies.

We would note in relation to paragraph [15] that the first respondent (Mathias Rath) has not denied that he, or the organisations he controls, holds at least 5 patents in the United States ("US") on his ‘medicines’. These are patent numbers: 6693129, 6686340, 5650418, 5278189, 5230996. The US Patent and Trademark Office Internet documents (last accessed 5 May 2005) demonstrating this are attached as ZAXX.

The statement on growth of pharmaceutical markets in Africa is speculative.

Ad paragraphs 16, 17 & 18

We dispute this characterisation of the intention or effect of the medicines registration regulations referred to. The proposed regulations would not have banned traditional medicines, but only prohibited the making of unsubstantiated claims on an unsuspecting public.

TAC does support proper research by the State to test the safety and efficacy of these substances, and to develop an appropriate intellectual property regime that might benefit the communities having knowledge about these substances should they prove safe and effective. The TAC submission to the MCC is attached as ZA … and is self-explanatory.

Ad paragraphs 19 and 23

Paragraphs [19] and [23] are a mischaracterisation of TAC’s mission. TAC’s expressed public concern is with the safety efficacy and quality of all medicines, and on the accessibility and affordability of healthcare services generally, including in relation to the need for proper informed patient consent to treatment.

The suggestion in para [19] of TAC’s allegiance to pharmaceutical companies is false and is denied. It is a statement defamatory of TAC.

Ad paragraph 20

We would note that the Rath respondents have conducted a smear campaign against TAC (and the Medicines Control Council) in furtherance of promoting their own products and services. We note that the paragraph is heavy with irony and hypocrisy, since the Rath respondents are capable of characterisation as foreign-based manufacturers and/or suppliers of synthetic ‘Western’ pharmaceutical products at great prices.(Attached?)

Ad paragraphs 7; 21 to 33

Individuals from the THO have been active in TAC. Like many other organisations, the THO has endorsed TAC work. Their withdrawal and dissatisfaction with our approach to informed consent explaining the benefits and risks of all medicines based on scientific evidence is regrettable. However, this will not stop TAC from working with individual traditional healers and other organisations.

The nature of the THO’s past relationship with TAC is, in any event, not relevant to the defamatory claims made by the Rath respondents which are the subject of this proceedings. Nevertheless, the THO was the first affiliated organisation in relation to which TAC considered ceasing any endorsement, as a result of THO’s defamatory attacks and its alliance with those who (for their own reasons) are in denial about the realities of HIV/AIDS and its proper care and treatment.

Ad paragraphs 24 and 25

We deny the matters set out here.

Ad paragraph 26

We note the THO does not name the TAC delegation. Three TAC national executive committee members attended this workshop. The delegation included Mark Heywood (TAC treasurer), Mr Luyanda Ngonyama (then representative of the religious sector) and Isaac Skosana (representative of people living with HIV/AIDS on the TAC executive). The Treatment Action Campaign contributed R5000.00 to the workshop that was addressed by the country representative of the WHO and a representative of the Medical Research Council. The AIDS Law Project was separately represented by Marlise Richter. This is undermining of a senior TAC delegation that attended this workshop. And, it goes contrary to the outcomes of that workshop. However, these allegations are irrelevant.

Ad paragraph 28

This is a mischaracterisation and is denied. TAC was one of four organisations co-hosting the event, which was widely advertised. Most non-TAC delegates and delegations were not specifically invited as suggested. They mostly requested to come on the basis of the public announcement of the event by TAC. Any organisation that notified TAC or others of its attendance was accepted. We are not aware that the THO seeked to attend the meeting. They would have not have been denied the opportunity to participate.

Ad paragraph 29

We deny this. We have no knowledge of how the THO operates, other than that it is not in a transparent manner.

Ad paragraphs 30 to 31

The THO are entitled to picket and to hold the views that they do about antiretrovirals. However, they do not have a right to defame anyone. The contents of their memorandum are denied. Denying every misrepresentation in it will run into volumes and most of it is irrelevant.

Ad paragraph 32

This base and unlawful allegation presents no evidence and repeats the slander, incitement, lies and hearsay contained in the affidavits of Brink and Langer. We ask that the Court strike out the hearsay.

Ad paragraph 34

The THO is definitely a co-sponsor of this defamation. This defamation was sent to members of parliament by the Respondents. Attached is a copy of letter under the signature of the Second Respondent and a reply by Professor Kader Asmal. Regrettably, the communities where Respondents have spread this defamation do not necessarily have access to the information that Professor Asmal has and only the Courts can intervene to stop the Respondents preying on vulnerable people.

Ad paragraph 35

We ask the Court to grant the relief sought in the Notice of Motion against the Traditional Healers Organization as Third Respondent in this matter.

Ad paragraph 36

We do not deny the first sentence of this paragraph. However, in relation to the second paragraph we will be submitting that there is no absolute right to freedom of speech – one is not free to defame another’s reputation and so impair their dignity with abusive falsehoods.

Ad paragraph 37

The TAC has no knowledge of the Nompumelelo Practitioners Traditional Healers Organization, its operations, the qualifications of its members or its constitutional procedures. We cannot comment on the allegations of injury suffered by its patients nor on the medications that they have used.

The TAC has a history of disagreement over strategy, tactics, accountability and corruption with the national leaders of NAPWA. Attached is a recent TAC e-news letter that sets out some of the conflict with their leaders and therefore we are not surprised that they should support the Respondents.

The Respondents accuse TAC of receiving money from drug companies but make common cause with NAPWA that according to a press release by drug company, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), received US$1.1 million from BMS. Annexure ZAXX is a press statement by BMS of 7 May 2004 and states "A separate grant of $1.1 million was disbursed to the National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS (NAPWA) to build institutional capacity, mobilize communities and provide treatment literacy among its membership."

NAPWA’s website states "NAPWA alongside Secure the Future are in preparations to launch a pilot Community Based Treatment Support Programme in Gauteng." Secure the Future is a programme of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

We merely point out the hypocrisy of the Respondents. We are not alleging that NAPWA’s receipt of funds from drug companies renders them a drug company front.

TAC debated our stand on refusing drug company funding with NAPWA leaders at our first national congress in Soweto in March 2001. I was present during these discussions. I asserted TAC’s position that it would not accept money sourced from drug companies.

Ad paragraph XX

The facts stated in the present affidavit are within my personal knowledge and belief and are true and correct.

_______________________________

ABDURRAZACK "ZACKIE" ACHMAT

SIGNED AND AFFIRMED BEFORE ME IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS DAY OF MAY 2005, THE DEPONENT HAVING STATED THAT HE HAS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS TO TAKING THE OATH AND THAT HE REGARDS THE AFFIRMATION AS BINDING ON HIS CONSCIENCE.

________________________

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS