Peoples Health Alliance Rejecting Medical Authoritarianism, Prejudice And Conspiratorial Tyranny



To The Tyranny Of Monopolistic PHARMACEUTICAL EXPROPRIATION Of Natural Health Substances.

Peoples Health Alliance Rejecting Medical Authoritarianism, Prejudice And Conspiratorial Tyranny.

Ph / fax: 04457-7765; PO Box 2404, Knysna, 6570. E-MAIL: or


Dr. Abe Nkomo (Chairman who kicked us out of Parliament)


The Secretary of Parliament 20 November 1998

Mr. Sindiso Mfenyana By fax and

Registered Mail

Dear Sir



With reference to our letter of 27 October and your mailed 29 October and faxed 9 November replies, we reply as follows for the official record.

Firstly, your absence from Parliament in the further absence of both the Speaker and Deputy-Speaker on the afternoon of the 26 of October is irresponsible, since in the absence of all three, there was apparently no one officially "in charge" of Parliament. To what extent this irresponsible state of affairs contributed to Chairman Dr Abe Nkomo's arrogant disregard of our fundamental constitutional rights is unknown, but the import of this objection is that there was essentially no higher authority to which we could turn and report this gross violation on the day in Parliament, nor for that matter the next day, when the same unacceptable conditions prevailed.

Our letter of 27 October was hand-delivered and signed for by your secretary on the morning of the 27 th with the express request therewith and therein that we be contacted within the next two days on either of our cell-phones, since we were specifically extending our stay in Cape Town for the next two days in the hope of amicably resolving the matter prior to the Bill's final debate, which turned out to be but one week later. By the end of the week and after follow-up calls to your office however, it was quite clear that we were wasting our valuable time, since you apparently had no intention of seriously attempting to timeously address the matter.

Your faxed 9 November letter more than a week later and moreover, the week 'after' the final debate and acceptance of the Bill, makes a mockery of your elevated public mandate to manage and serve the institution of Parliament, which word may we remind you means "to speak", which is precisely what we were denied, besides having our entire 62-page written submission arbitrarily struck from the Parliamentary record and furthermore confiscated from all present in the chamber. The essence of your totally unacceptable reply is that Dr Nkomo, in terms of Standing Rule 53, has the right to arbitrarily deny us our previously invoked constitutional rights.

I wish to draw to your attention your correctly stated, but then mysteriously conveniently ignored central point that the Standing Rules are "subject to the Constitution". For your information, Chapter 1 of the Constitution, Founding Provisions, Section 2, Supremacy of Constitution states: "This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or 'conduct' inconsistent with it is invalid". We had specifically invoked certain of these rights in terms of the Constitution in our correspondence, which you were constitutionally obliged to honour, but have clearly failed to do on all counts. Not only are Dr Nkomo's, Madame Speaker and your actions against us unconstitutional, but so too now is the law which has proceeded under these actions.

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution aside, you have fared no better in administering your mandate as it relates specifically to stated public Parliamentary access and participation. To refresh your memory, I will quote directly from the Parliamentary Web-site, as hypocritically transmitted to the world, those stated clauses which Dr Nkomo, Madame Speaker and yourself have so conveniently arbitrarily disregarded in your mishandling of this debacle:

*Parliament of South Africa. Welcome

Since the establishment of the new Parliament in 1994 a number of steps have been taken to make Parliament more accessible, more accountable, as well as to motivate and facilitate public participation in the legislative processes.

*Parliamentary Committees

The Parliamentary committee system is one of the most important mechanisms for ensuring efficient, transparent government and allowing public input in the law-making process. The Portfolio Committees monitor their Departments and may investigate and make recommendations relating to legislation and anything else.

*Parliament. Making democracy work. What is Parliament?

Parliament, like any other part of government, must act according to the South African Constitution. The Constitution is the highest authority in the land. It is there to protect the rights of the people. A nation in which all people have the right to speak is a democracy. Parliament belongs to the people. Parliament must be open and accountable. New laws (Bills) are drafted by departments and are then sent to Cabinet for approval. After this, they are discussed and debated by members of the National Assembly in Portfolio Committees where amendments or changes are made. The Portfolio Committee may also hold public hearings so that the views of the citizens can be taken into account. The full National Assembly must then vote on the Bill. The Presiding Officer in Parliament is the Speaker of the National Assembly. Their responsibility is to run Parliament. They must make sure that the rules of Parliament are obeyed by the members.

*Committees in Parliament

The Constitution is clear that Parliament must have real power to discuss, change or even reject Bills (draft laws) that come from Cabinet. This means that Committees in Parliament have a very important role to play. Committees play a vital role as part of the process of building democracy and public involvement in Parliament.

~ What has changed since 1994? Committee meetings are open to the public.

Everyone has the right to attend all meetings of the Committees.

How does Dr Nkomo honour the preceding principles?

Nkomo- ("I would ask you to withdraw immediately") ; ("Please leave this meeting") ; ("Please just get someone to remove this gentleman&ldots;..I think you better leave this meeting") ; ("Please leave the meeting please") ; ("You will leave the meeting") The same applies to the following principles:

~ The public has a say.

The Committees must take account of the views of the public. Often they hold hearings or ask for submissions. Even where they do not, the public can inform the Chairperson or members of the Committee about issues that concern them. Because of this, the public can affect decisions that are taken.

~ What the Committees do ...

Discussing Bills (draft laws) Most of the work on Bills is done in the Committees. It is here that the Bill is discussed and changes can only be made here. Consulting the public. The Portfolio Committee in the National Assembly must consult the public about the Bill. If it is an important Bill, it will hold public hearings or ask for submissions. Even if it does not, you have a right to inform the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee or any of its members about matters that may concern you. This is your right.

Committees can also call on Ministers and officials from State Departments to report on their work at any time. If it thinks there is a problem, a Committee may call an emergency hearing. Committees may hold hearings on government policy documents.

~ Parliament and You ...

The Constitution says that there must be public access and involvement in Parliament. This means that you have a right to attend the meetings of the Parliamentary Committees. When Parliament passes a law, it has a duty to take into account what members of the public feel. The word "Parliament" comes from the word "to speak". It is here that the voices of all the people of the country are heard. Your voice...and the voices of all the other citizens of this country. Every voice is important.

(END of Parliamentary web-site.)

Please note that during the exchange Dr Nkomo does all the ranting. After just one paragragph, ending with the words "We are pleased to draw to your attention that with the exception of the head of the MCC Inspectorate, these criminals are no longer weaving their evil web before you today", Dr Nkomo interrupts me and every time I try to ascertain what the precise objection is and what would be acceptable, he further interrupts my attempt to do so.

Significantly, I only get to say: ("The word criminal is in the Oxford dictionary. You must respect that&ldots;") ; ("OK. Alleged criminal.") ; ("Which words would you like me to withdraw Sir?") & ("I'll be happy to withdraw the word criminal if that’s what&ldots;")

I cannot conceive of this as being reasonable grounds for expulsion and striking off the record, especially considering that I am a layman, and hence deserving of the Chairman's assistance.


Let us compare the conduct of Chairperson (Dr Rajoo) and the Minister of Health in a remarkably

similar situation, whilst finally debating this Bill on 5 November (Prelim. revised copy. Tape:79/Disk:358.):

Minister: "What we are seeing here today are the acts of real hypocrites, because the same parties were congratulating us on this Bill when they thought that Act 1990 was being repealed&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;" (The Minister was allowed to continue for another 30 words or so, until someone loudly interjected. Then: )

The Chairperson: "Order! Hon. Minister, please withdraw the word hypocrites".

The Minister of Health: "Well, I withdraw the word, but the meaning remains".

The Chairman: "Order".

The Minister: "I withdraw unconditionally".

The Minister, quite rightly was then allowed to proceed.

What is the essential difference between my expulsion and the orderly proceeding of the above debate?

The difference is that in my case was that the chairman was, blundering, unprofessional and intolerent.

A simple stern"Please withdraw the word 'criminal' or you are going to denied the right to continue" is all that was needed. The offensive words were not identified outright, and the "We cannot use such words (plural) and I would ask you to withdraw immediately" was ambiguous in it's intent, since I initially thought that I was required to withdraw from the Chamber (as was demanded of me previously in September 1997), now for using what I presumed was the most provocative word or words used, namely 'criminal', although it could conceivably have been the word 'evil', possibly both, or even all (or none).

I further suspect that Dr Nkomo was biased against me from the outset, as confirmed by his statement to the effect of "This is not the first time you have behaved like this", and later "This is not the first time I've had such a demonstration from this group". I was in effect pre-judged and I believe, deliberately expelled under a petty pretext, to cover-up our explosive documentation and valid criticisms of the Bill. The striking of our 62-page submission from the Parliamentary record and the actual later confiscation of our submission from all members of the Committee, Dept. of Health, MCC, MP's, other delegates, observers and press, serves to support this contention.

Furthermore my stating that "the word 'criminal' is in the Oxford Dictionary. You must respect that&ldots;", had the intention of clarifying the numerous levels on which, in my understanding, the word could be used, but I was rudely interrupted by Dr Nkomo. (I refer you to the post scripted Oxford Dictionary definitions.) I then however realised that it appeared not to be not just the word but possibly the implication, and subsequently volunteered "OK. alleged criminal". Dr Nkomo blundered this matter.

I refuse to be unconstitutionally prejudiced by Dr Nkomo's gross mishandling of this matter, and I demand an impartial forum to deliberate and decide this matter, prior and subject to which I am morally bound to reject not only the SAMMDRA Act and any subsequent regulations, but also the Institution of Parliament itself.

Yours faithfully

Stuart Thomson,

National Co-ordinator, PHARMAPACT. Director, Gaia Research Institute.

CC Dr. Nkomo, Madame Speaker, Public Protector, Director-General and Minister of Health, Medicine Regulatory Authority, Human Rights Commission, and last but not least, the State President.

(PS. The Secretary responded on 8 January stating that the above does not take the matter any further. Ed.)


To The Tyranny Of Monopolistic PHARMACEUTICAL EXPROPRIATION Of Natural Health Substances.

Ph / fax: 04457-7765; PO Box 2404, Knysna, 6570. E-MAIL: or


For Personal Attention: Madame Speaker

National Assembly

2 November, 1998

By urgent fax

& Registered Mail


Dear Madame Speaker


It is with deep disgust that I draw your urgent attention to the following complaint against Dr Abe Nkomo, Chairman of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Health.

Rather than repeat myself, I refer you to the following documents bearing my signature. Please do not assume that you are already familiar with their contents, since important postscripts have subsequently been added to correct the record as more information became available to us.

To date we have not received a response from the Secretary, who as CEO and in the absence of yourself and the Deputy Speaker, I believe should have attempted to intercede, especially since we indicated that we were going to remain in Cape Town for another two days and extended our stay until the end of the week, at great additional expense, in the hope of receiving corrective action.

We would appreciate your comments on a total lack of co-operation from this quarter and also an urgent investigation into Dr Nkomo's unacceptable behaviour, which goes far beyond the call of duty as a public functionary and which has severely prejudiced not only our own constituency, but also that of two other organisations whom we were mandated to represent, namely the 200,000 member statutory Interim Co-ordinating Committee of Traditional Medical Practitioners of South Africa and the 7000 petition supported Consumers for Health Freedom, not to mention consumers and the public generally.

Most frustrating and problematic for us is that the two critical days following the incident were spent rail-roading the associated legislation without our vital information being taken into account by the Committee, which had been heavily lobbied by other groups with severely financially and power-play vested interests, and thereby placing the constitutionality of the legislation into jeopardy. Significantly our submission included critical testimony into the fraudulent positions being peddled by in particular four submissions and pertinent background material into three of the persons delivering false testimony, in particular regarding the representativeness, democracy and transparency allegedly forming the backbone of the Listing System being promoted to exclusively suit only their respective minority interests. We were in fact the only public representatives and fail to see how this scam can be portrayed as a "public hearing" in our absence.

Yours Faithfully

Stuart Thomson and Anthony Rees, National Co-ordinators, PHARMAPACT

 Peoples Health Alliance Rejecting Medical Authoritarianism, Prejudice And Conspiratorial Tyranny


The Secretary of Parliament				 								7th November 1998

By Hand

Mr. Sindiso Mfenyana


Dear Sir


It is with deep regret that we raise this extremely serious matter.

PHARMAPACT requested an opportunity to address the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee For health on the proposed SAMMDRA Bill. This request was granted and we made the necessary arrangements, inter-alia, the provision of eighty sets of a sixty-two page documentational submission and travelled from Knysna and Durban to facilitate the presentation.

To our surprise, one paragraph into the oral presentation, the chairman, Dr. Abe Nkomo interjected and used the excuse of what he deemed to be un-parliamentary language and later the accusation of swearing. I was stopped after the word "criminal", and since there was some confusion as to what the objection was, exchanged words with the chairman, which was, spuriously alleged to have constituted argumentation.

A transcript of what transpired is enclosed herewith, which is indisputable, since it was recorded, transmitted, and transcribed from the live SABC Parliamentary transmission. It is clear that I made every attempt to identify and correct any alleged transgression of parliamentary protocol, and that the chairman either over-reacted or possibly deliberately fabricated and excuse to prevent our submission from entering the parliamentary record, since this was his expressed intention.

It is our opinion that this development constitutes gross infringement of our Constitutional Rights to inter-alia :

It is our considered opinion that we are being deprived of said rights, in particular because of the spurious nature of the incident, which appears to have simply been a pretext to deliberate exclusion, especially due to the fact that our written testimony has also been withdrawn from the parliamentary record.

We believe that the foregoing arises from the serious nature of our testimony, which would rock the relevant institutions of Government to it’s very foundations if the truth of what we have to present be faced honestly.

We appeal to you to take corrective action immediately since the committee continues it’s work for the next two days and there is still time to demonstrate good-will and avoid an international incident. We attempted yesterday to contact the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Parliament and also yourself following the incident, after taking up the matter with the South African Police Services.

We attach for your information the first two pages of our submission and draw your attention to the first paragraph as well as the following serious information constituting the body of the document. Also enclosed is a transcription of the exchange.

We wish to point out that not only are our rights being violated, but also those of every Traditional Healer and health consumer in the country, since we were mandated by the Interim Coordinating Committee of Traditional Medical Practitioners of South Africa and also Consumers for Health Freedom, who have been denied a democratic voice in Parliament as a result of this incident.

PHARMAPACT Coordinators Stuart Thomson and Anthony Rees are in Cape Town for two days and can be contacted on the following cell phone numbers 0829277151 or 0828938245.

We look forward to an urgent solution before the proposed legislation develops further and is jeopardised by gross unconstitutionality.

Yours faithfully,

 Stuart Thomson and Anthony Rees

National Coordinators, PHARMAPACT


The Minister of Health

The Public Protector

Human Rights Commission

The International Court of Justice

The International Advocates For Health Freedom

Interim Coordinating Committee of Traditional Medical Practitioners

Consumers for Health Freedom


Let it be noted that at the time of writing the above letter it was not known to us that Dr Nkomo, after our expulsion from the chamber, in addition to the striking of our 62-page submission from the Parliamentary record, embarked on the questionable extreme of ordering the actual confiscation of our documents from those present in the chamber. We believe that these actions collectively are strongly indicative of a deliberate set-up to suppress the shocking documentation / circumstances which we were legally attempting to draw to the attention of Parliament.

It was erroneously stated in the above letter and the uncertified transcript referred to, that the chairman interjected 'after' the word "criminal". Let it be noted that I actually completed the sentence strictly according to the written submission, which included the word "evil". It was therefore not initially entirely clear whether the Chairman was objecting to just the word criminal and/or to the word "evil" or even to the whole sentence or paragraph.

Note the relevant Oxford Dictionary definitions as follows:

"criminal"- 1. a. Of (the nature of) crime; guilty of crime. 2. n. Person guilty of crime.

"crime"- 1. n. Act (usu. grave offence) punishable by law; evil act; such acts collectively; (colloq.) shameful act;

2. v.t. charge with or convict of an offence.

"guilty"- a. Criminal, culpable; having committed a particular offence.

"culpable"- a. Blameworthy.

"offence"- n. Attacking, aggressive action, annoyance, umbrage; transgression, misdemeanour, illegal act.

"evil"- a. Bad, harmful. n. Evil thing, sin, harm.

Stuart Thomson, 31 October, 1998.


THOMSON: The Chairperson and Honourable Members, Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Health. Thank you for granting us our request to make a direct presentation to the Committee.

[(Ad libbed) "It is of great concern to us that these proceedings seem to have been centered around money, power and control and very very little to do with actual health."] When last addressing this Committee in September last year, we drew your attention to gross maladministration by the MCC upper hierarchy and swore that we would "take them out". We are pleased to draw to your attention that with the exception of the head of MCC Inspectorate, these criminals are no longer weaving their evil web before you today. (Cut off here.)

NKOMO: If I may interrupt you there. (THOMSON: Yes?) Unfortunately sir this is Parliament and we have got a code of, you know, parliamentary procedures and we cannot use such words and I would ask you to withdraw immediately.

THOMSON: The word criminal is in the Oxford Dictionary. You must respect that&ldots;(NKOMO: No, No sorry. I'm not undertaking a debate. I'm addressing you on parliamentary decorum.) THOMSON: O.K. alleged criminal. (NKOMO: If you want to enter a debate this is not the place. If you want to set your own code of conduct then please leave this meeting and do that there, but here, you will withdraw that word.

THOMSON: Which words would you like me to withdraw Sir? (NKOMO: I think, please just get someone to remove this gentleman please he doesn't want to behave as you can see, I mean, to refer to people as criminals here and I'm telling you, and I want to conduct this debate with you, I'm chairing this meeting, I'm telling you what the conventions are. You don't want to listen so I think you better leave this meeting.)

THOMSON: I'm happy to withdraw the word criminal if that's what&ldots;(NKOMO: Please leave the meeting please.) THOMSON: And this is democracy Mr Chairman? (NKOMO: Please leave the meeting. This is not the first time, you've behaved like this.)

THOMSON: No, this is the second time you have denied me the right, the constitutional right to freedom of speech (NKOMO: Absolutely) as entrenched in the constitution. It 's a fundamental right! (NKOMO: what&ldots;, well that&ldots;, absolutely! (Here Nkomo switches off his intercom - says something but no audio).

Switches on again - NKOMO: There will be no freedom of speech&ldots; to swear at people&ldots; to denigrate people&ldots; that is not a constitutional requirement of this country. You will leave the meeting.

THOMSON: I will do so under objection. So much for constitutional rights!

(As the PHARMAPACT delegation are leaving the chamber, co-coordinator Anthony Rees exclaims: "From one dictatorship to another!")

(Nkomo again switches off this intercom - speaking but no audio, switches on again, mumbles) NKOMO: There is no freedom of speech to swear at people. Not in this Parliament and this is not the first time I've had such demonstration from this particular group. (Here Nkomo switches off his microphone, mumbles something. Switches on again) Not with that language&ldots; unfortunately the press has already got it but it shall be withdrawn as a parliamentary document because it is libelous, slanderous and we cannot allow it.

(After a pause, as PHARMAPACT exit the chamber) Nkomo: That gives us a bit of time. Let us proceed. Maybe we shall have the opportunity to address those questions which have arisen from more composed and dignified submissions.(Nkomo after a further pause, visibly laughs and then tries to compose and dignify his position.)

Certified as a true and accurate record, on this day 2 November,1998.

 Stuart Thomson and Anthony Rees, National Co-ordinators, PHARMAPACT.

 Peoples Health Alliance Rejecting Medical Authoritarianism, Prejudice And Conspiratorial Tyranny

(PS. The underlined sections hereafter represents the fraction of this oral presentation which we were allowed to deliver before being rudely silenced)


The Chairperson and Honourable Members, 26 October,1998

Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Health

Thank you for granting us our request to make a direct presentation to the Committee.

We have gone to great lengths to prepare a synoptic selection of documents for your information. Please honour our effort by properly familiarising yourself with its contents.

[(Ad libbed) It is of great concern to us that that these proceedings seem to have been centered around money, power and control and very little to do with actual health.]

When last addressing this Committee in September last year, we drew your attention to gross maladministration by the MCC upper hierarchy and swore that we would "take them out". We are pleased to draw to your attention that with the exception of the head MCC inspectorate, these criminals are no longer weaving their evil web before you today. We do however note with concern that their successors appear to have largely adopted the same illegal course as their predecessors, we hope out of ignorance rather than malice, since if developments continue, "we will have to take them out too".

We have appendiced our SAMMDRA enabling concerns as follows for your attention:

In closing we wish to thank the honourable Committee members in anticipation of their best attention to the numerous issues legally served on them here as public and Parliamentary record. As always we are at your service in the interests of Truth.

(PS. A certified transcript herewith from the live SABC transmission replaces the earlier crude transcript)

Peoples Health Alliance Rejecting Medical Authoritarianism, Prejudice And Conspiratorial Tyranny

The Chairperson 13 September, 1998

Dr Abe Nkomo By Speed Services

Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Health

Dear Dr Nkomo


The foregoing pages are self-explanatory and we accompany this short written submission with an urgent request for an opportunity to make a direct presentation to the Committee, so that the honourable members may understand why it is imperative that certain excessive powers, in particular in light of the all-encompassing definition of a complementary medicine is concerned, are appropriately curtailed and it is understood what potential ramifications these powers will have in the light of the currently proposed definition and powers. We request public hearings on all proposed regulations.

Please bear in mind the accuracy of our revelations in previous submissions of this nature, which have lead to the removal of those officers so identified and exposed, and partly to the proposed changes before us, which circumstances the honourable members did not quite fully appreciate at the time, but which in retrospect, completely vindicated our concerns then conveyed to the Committee.

We trust that an appropriate presentation will be extended to us, particularly in the light of the fact that no public hearings are scheduled to take place on what is an even more controversial bill than its predecessor.

Yours sincerely

Stuart Thomson, Director-Gaia Research Institute,

National Co-ordinator, PHARMAPACT

Peoples Health Alliance Rejecting Medical Authoritarianism, Prejudice And Conspiratorial Tyranny






This bill is an insult to all South Africans, the New South Africa, the reformed ? institution of Parliament and to our beloved State President.

This bill makes a total mockery of the concept of democracy and is the finest example of totalitarianism of the worst and most despicable kind.

This bill affects the most fundamental freedom after that of freedom of religion/belief, namely health freedom,

as enshrined in the Constitution [Sect. 12 (2)(b)]-

Freedom & Security: everyone has the right to bodily integrity and psychological integrity, which includes the right : to "security in and control over their body".

Further insults are infringements of the fundamental rights

(Sect. 14) to privacy: not to have their person, home or property searched; their possessions seized or the privacy of their com-munications infringed, and Sections (9) Equality, (10) Human dignity, (15) Freedom of belief, (16) Freedom of expression,

(32) Access to information, (33) Just administrative action, and most distressing of all, disregard for Sect. 34:Access to the Courts.

Specific objections. Page 1


Subsection 4 (e) -"attach anything on or seize from the person, place or premises", and (f) -"if the inspector wishes to retain anything contemplated in paragraph (e) for further examination or 'safe custody', remove it from the person, place, premises or vehicle against the issue of a receipt, but any medicine, device, article or document, that has been so removed, must be returned as soon as possible after the purpose for which it has been removed has been achieved. (In our recorded legal experience, this may mean never.)

Subsection 10 makes a total mockery of earlier perfectly constitutional clauses: Subsection 6 (a), which states that "a warrant must only be issued in chambers by a magistrate or a judge of the High Court, if it appears to such magistrate or judge from information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any medicine, article or document which has bearing on the investigation is in the possession, or under the control of any person or on any place, premises or vehicle situated within the area of jurisdiction of such magistrate or judge and cannot be reasonably obtained in any other manner". That this can arbitrarily be negated by subsection 10, is outrageous.

Subsection 7 (a) furthermore makes provision for "a person who may 'lawfully' under this section enter and 'search' any place, premises or vehicle; to use such force as may be necessary to overcome any resistence against such entry and 'search', including the breaking of any door or window of such place, premises or vehicle." (search = seizure!)

The broad range of normal activities, perfectly legal since time immemorial in relation to promoting natural health and naturally preventing/avoiding disease, but which now theoretically become arbitrarily criminalised due to the provisions of this bill, do not fit the penalty of an unprescribed fine, nor the maximum of 10 years imprisonment, if indeed any should be punishable at all, rather than encouraged.

Section 48. Limitation of liability however, represents the greatest assault on our constitutional freedom of all: "No legal proceedings lie against the any member of the Authority, its committees, or any person co-opted to any of its committees, or any person contracted by the Authority to assist in the performance of its (perceived) functions in terms of this Act, in respect of any act performed in 'good' faith by any member of the Authority, its committees &ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots;&ldots; in terms of this Act".

Stuart Thomson, Director, Gaia Research Institute,

National Co-ordinator, PHARMAPACT. Knysna, 13 September 1998.