There was one notable absentee among the host of international pharmaceutical litigants that lined up against the government over the Medicines Control Act in the Pretoria High Court on Monday this week.

The New York based pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, elected not to take part in the case brought by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’€™ Association on behalf of some 40 drug companies against the 1997 Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act.

“The reason for not taking part in the case goes back to 1997 when the PMA was developing the approach for litigation against the South African government,” said Pfizer’€™s associate director, public affairs Imraan Munshi.

“At that stage there was a difference in approach how to handle it and since then Pfizer has been committed to discussion and negotiation regarding access to drugs,” he said.

Munshi added that the merits of this approach were evident in the agreement between Pfizer and the South African government to distribute fluconazole free of charge to treat AIDS-related opportunistic infections such as thrush and cryptococcal meningitis.

He said the deal was “the only partnership of its kind” and was “a sterling example of the results of negotiation”.

Despite the agreement, which was announced on December 1 – World AIDS day ‘€“ last year, free fluconazole has yet to become a reality for people living with HIV/AIDS.

Munshi said he expected delivery of the drug to take place “any day now” and as soon as it was in the country distribution would begin.

He added, however, that Pfizer believed firmly in patent protection, but that when it came to essential drugs, “negotiation was the way to go”.

Treatment Action Campaign chairperson Zackie Achmat acknowledged that it was noteworthy that Pfizer was not among the litigants in the Pretoria High court. However, he called on Pfizer to resign from the PMA in order to distance itself from the court action.

In response to TAC’€™s call, Munshi said that Pfizer had always been a member of the PMA. He added that there was a “big difference” between choosing not to be an official plaintiff in the court case and being a member of the PMA.