Home / TAC & ALP Press Conference on UNGASS - Part 1

TAC & ALP Press Conference on UNGASS - Part 1

30 March 2006

This press conference was called after the TAC and the AIDS Law Project (ALP) learnt that they had been excluded from accreditation in order to attend the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on AIDS (UNGASS). This because the South African government had objected to their participation. The TAC and the ALP were two of six organisations that had been prevented from accreditation through the deliberate intervention of UN member states. Namibia and Belarus were the only other two countries that exercised objections. Hundreds of organisations from across the world had been accredited because their governments did not choose to exercise an objection. By objecting to TAC and ALP accreditation the South African government acted unilaterally and intolerantly. In media reports, the Director-General of Health explained that the TAC was objected to because it disagrees with and embarrasses government. The Department of Health also conceded that some of the organisations that they had not objected too they had never even heard of.

Linda Mafu: Is it still morning?

Sipho Mthathi: No.

Linda Mafu: Ok, welcome to the press conference. We have Zackie who is the chairperson of TAC and we have Sipho Mthathi who is the General Secretary of TAC. And we’ve got Fatima who is working for ALP and … who’s going to start? Sipho Mthathi will start to speak.

Sipho Mthathi: Thanks everyone for coming again. I think these press conferences are really to notify the public of developments since the unfortunate situation of the TAC being blocked from participation at what we consider a really critical international platform where the whole world meets to make a new declaration to how it’s going to save lives and deal with an epidemic which continues to ravage many people in the world. I’m going to try and read some abstracts from the press statement, I think that for us the starting point is that the Special Session on AIDS is an opportunity for the world as a whole, but really for South Africa as a state, to develop a programme of action which will create what the whole world has now agreed needs to be universal access to prevention, treatment and care for HIV and AIDS. We will campaign for considerable injection of resources for the HIV epidemic, including sufficient financing for the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria because I think as many of you will know, at this stage, on the one hand the world is making a declaration to create universal access to all these things by 2010; the global fund continues to be significantly under resourced which is going to mean that many countries who will go to the UNGASS meeting and be part of the new declaration that will be made to realise universal access will continue to struggle with resources.

Sipho Mthathi: So those are really some of the issues we’re bringing and questions we’re bringing for consideration in the new declaration that should come out of the UNGASS special session. But to come to the point of TAC and here, I think people remember that in March there was a process where civil society organisations were allowed, formally by the United Nations, to apply for accreditation to participate at the UNGASS meeting because usually it’s mainly member states; because the UN serves member states. But there had been a conscious decision to ensure that civil society groups get a platform and are able to interact and contribute to the formulation of a new declaration which will revise the old declaration of 2001. TAC had applied like any other group, civil society group, to go and unfortunately in our case the government had objected to our participation and had objected also to the participation of the AIDS Law Project which is a partner organisation. Thus far we know that South Africa was one of the very few countries, including Namibia and Belarus where some of the only countries, that objected to civil society groups participating. We know that by now there are more than 800 groups internationally, civil society groups who will participate at the meeting because they got accreditation; they were not objected by our government. When we heard that our government had objected to our participation we were indeed shocked and we feel that government in that case acted unilaterally and intolerantly.

Sipho Mthathi: In media reports, the DG of Health explained that the reason we had been excluded was because our organisation and the ALP disagrees with government on certain issues on HIV/AIDS and that they fear that we would have used the platform to embarrass the government. Obviously after that we saw the international outcry which I think, objected to the objection. And there was a lot of pressure internationally from all civil society groups, but also the UN itself, to say that this is undemocratic, this cannot be allowed to happen, not in a democratic country. But also it stands against everything that not only the old declaration which is very strong around the participation of civil society, but consequently we met with government, the Director General of Health who explained to us some of the reasons. But we went there with very specific demands and the demand was for TAC and the ALP to be included in the country delegation with no conditions. What then evolved from that was that the country delegations was constructed, we recognised that the department created the delegation under tight time constraints and this has been the feedback from government because we raised the concern that we feel there was no consultation, not even by SANAC, which is supposed to be the country co-ordinating mechanism.

Sipho Mthathi: Because there was no time according to the DG of Health, there was no time to do proper consultation, and we feel that resulted then in a unilateral process by the government where there was no proper consultation. And we’ve subsequently made some, you will have seen the list of 14 people who have been invited to participate in the country delegation including myself. And we’ve made several suggestions to the department around, what we feel needs to be reconsidered. We continue to feel strongly that the process of selecting the country delegation was unilateral on the side of government but we have tried to be positive and make suggestions around the need to include at least one of the SANAC representatives of the people living with HIV and those officially elected by those people living with HIV. And we feel strongly that they must go into that delegation. We are also, and this is the key issue that will decide for us whether we accept the invitation that has come to us. The participation of a law and human rights sector and in this case that would be the AIDS Law Project. Fatima will talk about the developments in that front. The issue for us is that we were intending to send at least two delegates to the UNGASS. The invitation only gives us a chance to send only one delegate and the department has decided to choose the delegate for the organisation but we’ve raised that as a concern on our part. But some of the issues we’d like to raise regarding the delegation is that it remains unclear if there are conditions because what does it mean to go as a country delegate. Does it mean that we therefore can’t act with other groups and engage in protest actions and engage in debates and other forums in the way that through the accreditation process we could have been able to be alongside other civil society groups?

Sipho Mthathi: The letter sent to us thus far does not specify any of those things so we are just waiting for some information from the department around whether there are conditions which would make if difficult for us to then do the things that as an activist organisation we need to do. The other concern that we would like to raise is that while the list is representative of delegates at face value that there are serious concerns around why there is not officially, for instance, a health professional representative. There is a woman representing the labour sector, Miss Gwagwa but we feel that it is unacceptable not to include a medical professional but also we feel strongly, and this is for us the thing that will decide our participation, that the human rights body in the name of the ALP must be included and until we get further information, we retain our decision around whether we accept the invitation or not. And Zackie will explain the other issues.

Linda Mafu: I will now hand over to Fatima.

Fatima Hassan: My name is Fatima Hassan, I’m an attorney with the AIDS Law Project. We wrote a letter after we had heard through the press statement issued by the Department of Health last week that the delegation had been constructed which specifically excluded the AIDS Law Project. So in an effort to act with bona fide, as, in an effort to act in a constructive spirit, we wrote a friendly letter to the DG of Health before the long weekend commenced, asking that they reconsider the delegation list and we raised several concerns about people who appear on the list as well as our exclusion. We have yet to hear from the DG of Health, we’ve been informed that the spokesperson, Sibane Mngadi is off sick and we’ve tried to approach or contact Charity Bengu, the Department’s media officer who’s promised to revert back to us. So as far as we know as at 12:15 we are still excluded and we are not on the list. I think there’s two other points that we would like to make and it’s something that we made quite clear with the DG of Health when we met with him and Sibane last week, is that our intentions are quite clear and we’ve written to the Department indicating what our intentions are. Our intentions are not to go and lampoon any particular individual, the minister or the president. Our intentions are to constructively engage with the UNGASS process to make sure that governments, including our own government, set concrete targets for universal access to prevention, treatment and care. And really, what we want to offer is a sober, critical assessment of government’s current policies on HIV/AIDS including the manner at which the operational plan on HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment is being implemented or the extent to which it’s failing in terms of the slow pace of the rollout. So we would really urge government to act within the spirit which they said they would at our meeting with them in Pretoria last week, and that is not to use tactics to exclude key organisations that really have value to offer at this process. And so we would urge again for government to include the AIDS Law Project, include a person living with HIV/AIDS, to include a medical professional and to seriously consider that some of the people on the list are actually not civil society representatives; one candidate is in fact a member of parliament. So by any definition of civil society, that person shouldn’t be on the civil society list. And really then, finally, not to impose any conditions on our participation.

Linda Mafu: Thanks Fatima, Zackie?

Zackie Achmat: It’s very clear that what the government is doing is an attempt to divide and rule. It is absolutely unacceptable to the Treatment Action Campaign that the AIDS Law Project will be excluded. We will consider every single option, including litigation if necessary. There’s no question that we don’t accept the current conditions in relation to government. Government’s current stand is unacceptable, it’s unilateral, it’s a cat and mouse game and we’re not in the business to play this cat and mouse game with the government any longer. We’ve never been in the business of playing cat and mouse games with it. It’s also critical for us as I agree with what everyone says including a representative delegation, but more importantly for us, UNGASS is about speaking the truth and no one in this government speaks the truth about AIDS. And that’s the tragedy of the epidemic and that is why we were excluded and we will go to UNGASS to speak the truth, whether we’re inside or outside, we will speak the truth.

Linda Mafu: I’d like to take a few hands. Ask questions.

Journalist 1: Is there or was there any way at which a non-governmental organisation could participate in UNGASS or do you have to be invited?

Sipho Mthathi: Take a round?

Zackie Achmat: Ja, take a few.

Linda Mafu: Can I take a few questions?

Business Day Journalist: (Inaudible)

Die Burger Journalist: (Inaudible)

Linda Mafu: I’ll take another one. Can you respond?

Sipho Mthathi: Do you want to start?

Zackie Achmat: … that you submit a list of NGOs. NGOs apply independently to go and then governments are allowed to include in their delegation civil society delegates. So there’s the independent list which is the way we wanted to go, independently of government. Government excluded us and that has to be agreed by the UN General Assembly. And it can only be agreed if there’s no objections and government objected to our participation, so that was the process.

Zackie Achmat: The UN submitted our name. As far as … we’ve always had very good working relationships with the World Health Organisation, with UNAIDS, I’ve just come back from a World Health Organisation Strategic and Technical Adviser committee on AIDS. So I mean from those bodies, they recognise that civil societies have a critical role and TAC in particular has an important role to play in the epidemic. For us, I’m sure other people can answer this but there’s no question, the AIDS Law Project is a central part of the response of the epidemic right from the beginning. Even before I was with the AIDS Law Project, it’s always been there, it’s been critical to developing a human’s right response to the epidemic. The AIDS Law Project is represented on the UN Human Rights Advisory Board, in fact Mark’s just gone for a meeting there. So the critical thing for us is you cannot leave a central partner to the epidemic that has an institutional memory to the human rights approach to HIV and the rights of people living with HIV, the vulnerability of women, the vulnerability of men who have sex with men and so on; enormous experience from the AIDS Law Project which is not available in any place in the world and to share that experience that the AIDS Law Project has. And it’s not because we want our chums to go, many other chums would prefer to go. But really, it’s not a question about chums going.

Sipho Mthathi: Just to add to that, I think that a year ago the United Nations recognised a culture of human rights to be central in dealing with the epidemic and I think that the ALP’s work has been recognised internationally as central to the global thinking around how do we instil a culture of human rights and thinking through the international response to the epidemic. And then on TAC, I think that one of the reasons TAC feels strongly that we need to be part of the process of thinking about how do we save what the world is? …will be about 10 million people who have AIDS by 2010, that’s the statistics that’s being suggested. And how do we ensure that in South Africa we save 2 million, we know that by 2010 there will be 2 million new infections and it’s going to take considerable social mobilisation to ensure that all our prevention efforts work, that the kind of care and working, organising and mobilising against stigma and building a new culture of thinking and living with the epidemic in our own country and in the world is developed and the Treatment Action Campaign has proven itself with regard to being able to mobilise not only internationally but locally. We are an organisation of more than 16 000 members who are represented in more than 280 communities in our country. And that we consider incredible experience of communities and how communities are experiencing HIV but also our organisation is predominantly people living with HIV and we consider ourselves then a significant partner in the national and international response to the epidemic. So that’s why we feel strongly that we need to be there. Our work in the past and currently speaks for itself. We run some of the largest treatment literacy and community mobilisation programmes in our country and that work is recognised internationally. And so our members have a right to insist that our organisation needs to be included. And then, just in terms of the UN response, I mean Zackie explained that the UN, I think the UN has been equally shocked, was equally shocked by the blocking by South Africa because I think that the UN takes a lot of inspiration from many things that our country does right and one of those things has been our government’s respect of human rights and South Africa has one of the best institutions in the world. So things like this are not expected by the world and they were equally shocked. And the UN has tried it’s best to lobby the South African government, not to embarrass itself because that’s what would have happened. Because the whole UNGASS would have been tainted by this because the world would have needed to speak against this action by our government because it stands against all the principles of what the UN is trying to do around HIV and AIDS.

Linda Mafu: Fatima?

Fatima Hassan: I think to answer the question from the Business Day, the reason why the AIDS Law Project has to go is quite simply because we live in a country where democracy still rules and constitutional principles still apply. We use the processes for accreditation for NGOs that were open to us earlier this year to apply for accreditation as part of civil society’s broader delegation, so not part of the government delegation. And of the organisations that submitted their names, about 10 government said they hadn’t heard of them so they had no comment and they couldn’t use the process available to them to object to their participation. So those organisations that government has admitted they know very little about their work are going to the UN as fully accredited civil society organisations. Two organisations, the TAC and the AIDS Law Project were objected to, in terms of the resolution which the UN allows member states to object to certain organisations. Belarus objected to two, Namibia objected to two and the irony is that the AIDS Law Project has very good relationships with those two organisations. In Namibia, we co-founded those organisations and South Africa objected to two. So South Africa is in a league with Belarus and Namibia who objects to organisations to participate at these meetings. The only option then available to us to be able to go to participate in the UNGASS process, given the door was now closed to civil society accreditation, was that you had to go with your country delegation which is why we said to government the only option available to you now is that you have to take us along with the country delegation. And that too, you’ve seen how that has turned out. So on a basic, simple reason, the reason why we have to go is because we asked to be accredited, we asked the UN to be accredited and our government objected to our participation for no good reason. We believe that the Minister acted unilaterally and irrationally and outside the principles of the Constitution and that’s something that needs to be challenged.

Fatima Hassan: On a more … beyond the politics of why the AIDS Law Project needs to go, it’s the only specialist HIV/AIDS and legal organisation in Sub-Saharan Africa. We have been monitoring the provision of ARV treatment and the rollout since November 2004 when the plan was first adopted. We co-ordinate the Joint Civil Society Monitoring Forum which is made up of 17 leading health systems organisations and other civil society bodies in this country which has become the leading civil society voice on issues around treatment. And we also, ironically, sit on the negotiation team for the civil society which is currently negotiating the health charter with the Department of Health, in fact I sit on that team and another one of my colleagues sits on that team representing SANGOCO. So our credentials are there and the only reason why government has decided to object and exclude our participation from the initial list as well as the subsequent delegation list is because they’re worried we will provide a critical assessment of government’s failure in responding to HIV/AIDS in this country, it’s worried that we will reflect an honest, sober reflection on what has happened and what is going to happen in this country.

Linda Mafu: Can I take another round of hands?

Journalist 2: Just one question about going on your own … (inaudible)

Zackie Achmat: No, there’s no question there, which ever way we’re going to be done.

Fatima Hassan: We’ve been invited by other international organisations to go along with their delegations.

Journalist 3: But can they technically do that?

Fatima Hassan: Yes.

Zackie Achmat: They choose who their delegations are.

Fatima Hassan: The international organisations.

Journalist 3: And you would still be able to talk as TAC?

Journalist 4: Is your standing … Do you get to speak on the same platform as … by the South African government?

Sipho Mthathi: Ja, see I mean I think that the bottom line is we’ll be able to participate. I mean obviously to get visas and for logistical reasons we have to then go as part of the other organisation’s delegation. But the bottom line is we will be able to participate in our own right and raise the issues that we need to raise. So there’s no question about that and I think it will be a back door because we wanted to go in our own right but there’s various offers for us to speak and participate in various things, so that’s not really an issue. The issue for us was the principle of; we applied as an independent civil society group that has a right to go to UNGASS officially and we would still be going but the principle of independence and respect of civil society’s independence by government was broken and we stand against that. But just to talk to, because the issue here is that whatever it’s being called and, we’re waiting to know whether the ALP will be included but there’s been some attempt to invite the TAC and it’s a thing we’re seriously considering because we are reasonable and we do want to go to UNGASS and if government is honest about the possibility without the conditions, to go to UNGASS we will consider that seriously because we’re not doing this just to fight and be unreasonable. And so if they’re honestly inviting us and saying that there’ll be no conditions, that we’d be able to do the things that we wanted to do to contribute to a positive outcome of the UNGASS process then obviously we’ll consider that positively. But we obviously have to ensure that there’s no conditions because then we can’t accept that.

Journalist 4: What was their first response when they met with you? Did they make any noises around; we want to pull your horns, to do this and not do that. Were there any little conditions?

Sipho Mthathi: Well obviously the mere fact of objecting was to say we don’t want you to speak the truth because government has sent a report through to UNGASS which will be read and included as part of the global report on progress. Since the 2001 declaration we’ve raised our concerns around the report and have said that it was not an honest reflection on what South Africa has been able to achieve in the past 5 years. They know exactly how we feel and when we met, there was, I think there was a recognition that they’re not going to change what we say but they would like to and any government wants that and they want people to. And we are hoping that inviting us isn’t another one of those attempts to say we will cushy up to you and therefore you mustn’t be too critical; because really the point for us is not about the government and fighting with government, it’s about saying that South Africa has 2 000 new infections each day, we’re still treating far less people than we can be treating with our resources, we can be doing much more to address the human resource crisis in our country which means that the rollout is happening at a much slower pace than it could be. And we want those things that the Department declared; the TB crisis which is directly linked to the epidemic, and so we need to work on those things and be critical about the failures as well as celebrate the fact that there’s a lot of enthusiasm among certain people in government to make this work. And we must say that we know that there are people in government who are breaking their backs to make the comprehensive plan work and we’re not saying that everyone in government is the same but we are saying that there needs to be far greater leadership by the Health Minister and by the President. But we recognise the work of people like Nomonde Xundu and others despite the bureaucratic political difficulties we’re working to make sure that lives are saved.

Journalist 5: I have a question, does the ALP have backdoor invitation as well? And are they … And what sort of legal action were you talking about? Just those.

Journalist 6: (inaudible)

Journalist 3: Just the date of the meeting and you mention that if the ALP is not included then TAC will not go, so is that sort of seats?

Sipho Mthathi: …as part of the country delegation.

Journalist 3: Ja, and then also like…(inaudible)

Sipho Mthathi: Just on that, I mean our national deputy chairperson who unfortunately couldn’t be here today because she’s based in Limpopo will be going as well as one of our leaders, Vuyiseka Dubula, hopefully. So we had said that we are sending three people; and obviously myself. And depending on what happens, some of us will go as part of other group’s delegations but to represent the organisation. So they will go.

Journalist 3: …condition, you said that ALP is not included, you might refuse to go.

Sipho Mthathi: Ja I mean obviously for us the issue is if a country delegation is constituted, it needs to be representative and to be representative it needs to…because if you look at the list of 40 names, they come from various sectors and obviously it’s by no means exhaustive and doesn’t include all the sectors. But I think it includes a significant number of some of the representatives from key sectors whether government says it accepts that. It’s sector based, but those people represent sectors. And for us it’s a significant omission that an organisation that has done work more than any other organisation, in fact there’s no organisation like the ALP in our country that has shown the kind of leadership in the issue of human rights and worked with government in various significant processes of creating legislation to ensure that the rights and interests of people living with HIV are represented. The ALP sits officially in there because Mark Heywood sits as a representative of the human rights sector in SANAC and so it baffles us that they would even have been debate when constructing a national delegation that you don’t have an organisation that is officially representative as part of a sector in SANAC. So for us that’s critical and we’ll decide whether we participate or not. We are looking forward to a positive outcome on that one. Just on the issue on your question, in our country currently, the estimations are that about 700 000 people need AIDS treatment. Currently, according to the best of our information, there’s about 200 000 people on treatment that includes about 90 to 100 000 people in the private sector and that’s people who are buying treatment for themselves. And then in the government programme, more than 110 000 people. We are saying that in terms of the need we are far short of the target and that’s why we are currently thinking through targets like shouldn’t we be aiming for at least 500 000 people on treatment by 2008? Because if we don’t aim even higher than that we are going to lose hundreds of thousands of people and we can’t be complacent on that because we will be guilty in having allowed lives to be lost. On the question of prevention, government is busy working on a new prevention plan, calling it Accelerated Prevention Plan and we’ve been invited in the initial meeting and we contributed and we intend to contribute. But we’ve got to act with urgency because to save 2 000 lives a day is going to require massive social mobilisation and a different approach to talking about HIV. And that’s why we’re having the Prevention Summit, to say we support the WHO’s call for access to accelerated prevention services and government’s attempts, we recognise that they are making attempts to construct a new strategic plan for South Africa on prevention. But we’ve got to act with urgency and we’ve got to learn serious lessons from the past.

Journalist 6: (inaudible)

Sipho & Zackie: …new infections.

Zackie Achmat: 1500, I would say 1500, ja.

Journalist 6: And what is that, the number of infections in the country…?

Sipho Mthathi: …prevalence?

Journalist 6: Yes, how many millions are …?

Sipho Mthathi: About 5 ½ to 6 million, government’s own report spelled out 6 million living with HIV.

Linda Mafu: Fatima can you respond to the legal reaction question that was asked.

Zackie Achmat: I’ll do that one. The case, the law is pretty clear, both the Constitution and the laws are very clear. The Constitution says that everyone has the right to freedom of association, that’s very important and more than that the Constitution also guarantees every citizen the right to live freely in and out. The Constitution also guarantees every citizen the right to just administrative action. So government took a decision about us without our participation, without allowing us to make representation and so on. So there’s a law apart from the Constitution, there’s a law also that protects the right of organisations and individuals and so on, it’s called the Promotion of Administrative Justice. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act which says that if any official or any government makes a decision about you, you have the right to be informed, you have a right to make representations before the decision is taken. And so that would be the legal framework. But from our point of view, we do not want to go the route of going to the courts. We really want government to behave in a responsible fashion so that we don’t have to go to court again, it would be a waste of time, it really would be. Ja.

Journalist 3: Can I just ask something? I’ve read through the government report, thoroughly but please correct me if I’m wrong. There doesn’t seem to be any mention of the rollout…there doesn’t seem to be any mention of the legal action… There seems to be very blurry in terms of the history of the fight in this country, am I right or am I rough reading the government’s own report?

Zackie Achmat: Ag you know all governments’ white wash, all governments’ white wash. There’s not a single government that doesn’t white wash. The truth for us would be for government to go there and say we’ve got a crisis of illness, crisis of death and a crisis of new infections and that’s all we want government to say. We don’t care if they give us credit or not, the real question is the crisis facing us now and they are not speaking the truth about that.

Fatima Hassan: I mean there are two major omissions in the report and we’ve told them about this, if they exclude any mention of data on mortality, on prevalence, on incidents, on TB and HIV etc and they don’t provide any reasons why they’ve excluded that. Then the second omission is that they’ve included data in their tables around figures and around budgetary numbers which are largely inaccurate, they don’t match up with what the National Treasury has said. So maybe it was a last minute job, maybe it’s a rush job, maybe it’s an attempt to gloss over the truth, it could be a number of factors but it doesn’t really speak to the reality and the truth of what’s happening. The table on hospital admissions numbers is blank and government says we cannot provide reliable patient numbers because we don’t have a patient information system in place. So they can’t report to the UN meeting on how many people they have on treatment in the public sector and in the private sector. Ja, so there are a number of omissions. Just to answer your question on the ALP and the backdoor, we have been invited by other organisations as well and if we’re not included in the government delegation we will consider making use of those invitations and we will participate.

Journalist 7: Can you tell us which organisations have invited you?

Zackie Achmat: We don’t want them to be embarrassed at this stage.

Fatima Hassan: They are organisations that are accredited by …, ja.

Journalist 7: From within this county or from other countries?

Zackie Achmat: Abroad.

part two >