The ACDP stands up for our cricketers’ rights

Marie Sukers, ACDP MP

The South African Constitution states in Section 15(1) that “everyone has the right to freedom, conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion”. It is therefore that I, along with the ACDP, reject Cricket South Africa’s (CSA) decision to force the South African cricket team to kneel or perform any action that is not their own. As the ACDP is not against the COVID vaccine, but against making the vaccine mandatory, so too, we support the freedom of choice in this matter. I am a black woman but will not kneel in solidarity against racism. The ACDP views collaboration and co-belligerency as vital to democracy.

However, for me, along with millions of other Christians, the act of kneeling risks surrendering to the imperious politics of the BLM movement whose belief system runs counter to core Christian values. Furthermore, my conviction is that bending my knee is a solemn gesture reserved for my God. I am not forced; this is my choice. So too it should be incumbent upon each player to determine how, whether at all, they signal their response to this campaign. In a recent statement, the CSA board stated that “it is imperative for the team to be seen taking a united and consistent stand against racism”.

Clearly, the CSA is more interested in optics than the very real rights of the players, who the CSA admits were not first consulted. The statement sordidly goes on to invoke Archbishop Tutu’s 90th birthday celebration as a reason “to demonstrate we are working to fulfil his vision”. The glib board was clearly not listening when the Arch said: “Don’t raise your voice, improve your argument”. Instead, let us honour the lifetime the Arch spent fighting for human rights by supporting his favourite team on the field and respecting their choices off it.

ACDP challenges the Department of Health and SAHPRA in court over the Covid-19 vaccination rollout on children

ACDP challenges the Department of Health and SAHPRA in court over the Covid-19 vaccination rollout on children

29 October 2021

ACDP National
Media Statement
By Bongani Khanyile-Luthuli

On 21 September the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) requested all information from the Department of Health (DoH) and the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) regarding its authorisation of the experimental roll out of vaccinations on the South African Public. No response was received in the statutory 30 day period.

Instead the DoH proceeded to proudly and defiantly roll out a vaccination programme for children for 12 to 17 year olds based almost, if not entirely on US FDA and WHO recommendations and assessment of the Pfizer product known as “Comirnaty” of Pfizer / Biontech for children aged 12 – 17 years of age.

On the 19th October 2021 the ACDP sent correspondence to the DoH and SAHPRA demanding that the DoH suspend its roll out of vaccinating children in the 12- to 17-year-old age group.

The correspondence complained in effect that the decision of SAHPRA on or about the 10th of September 2021 in which SAHPRA granted authorization for the use of the product known as “Comirnaty” of Pfizer / Biontech for children aged 12 – 17 years of age, was contrary to the best interests of children and that children were being used as a shield to protect adult society when adult society should be protecting children.

On the 8th of October 2021 the FREE THE CHILDREN SAVE THE NATION NPC lodged an appeal in terms of Section 24A (1) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, No 101 of 1965, (“the Act”) against the decisions of SAHPRA, including trials on children from 6 months old, the most vulnerable in society.

Notwithstanding the noting of the appeal, the DoH persisted with the roll-out of a comprehensive and fast-tracked plan to vaccinate the children of South Africa.

The DoH was given until Thursday the 21st October 2021 to furnish the ACDP with a written undertaking that it will stop the vaccination of children pending the appeal or else an urgent application would be launched for an interim interdict to prevent the DoH and health practitioners from administering Covid-19 vaccinations on children pending the finalisation of the appeal.

The DoH and SAHPRA neither acknowledged nor responded to the said correspondence.

In fact the DoH and its Acting DG, Nicholas Crisp (Crisp), who has not committed to vaccinate his own daughter, doubled down on the Nation’s Children and their parents.

Then SAHPRA held a meeting with FREE THE CHILDREN SAVE THE NATION NPC on Tuesday 26 October 2021 to resolve the issue but the CEO unlawfully refused to make a decision for another 30 days.

The ACDP and the FREE THE CHILDREN SAVE THE NATION NPC were forced by the DoH, SAHPRA and Crisp to apply to court for an urgent interdict pending the internal appeal to SAHPRA.

The ACDP and FREE THE CHILDREN SAVE THE NATION NPC argue amongst others that:

Medical science agrees that children are effectively at no risk of serious illness or death when infected with the SARS -COV-2 virus and that there is no need to vaccinate children against the SARS-COV-2 virus for their own protection or safety.

Vaccinating children by way of an unproven Emergency Use Authorisation (“EUA”) vaccine and / or conducting trials on children to test the efficacy and /or effectiveness of the vaccine against SARS-COV-2 in children can never be in the best interests of children.

There is mounting evidence that children who are vaccinated with the vaccine against SARS-COV-2 suffer vaccine injuries and death, especially from myocarditis.

According to expert evidence excess deaths in the UK, USA and Israel amongst vaccinated children and particularly boys are mounting.

There is no scientific, reasonable or rational reason for children to be vaccinated against the covid virus currently, and until the appeal against SAHPRA’s decision to roll the vaccine, which will focus on the medical evidence as to the relative benefits and risks of vaccination, has been completed and can prove otherwise, children have to be protected according to their constitutional, human and obvious rights.

The ACDP has accordingly served urgent court papers in the High Court Pretoria on the DoH, Crisp and SAHPRA, to seek an order interdicting and restraining the rollout pending the internal appeal before SAHPRA.

The application will be heard on Tuesday 9 November 2021.

-ENDS-

For media enquiries please contact:

* Bongani Luthuli, ACDP NEC Member, Cell: 076-100-4051.

OR

* Steve Swart MP, ACDP Chief Whip, Cell: 083-285-6290.

Wits Forced Vaccines

Wits Forced Vaccines

Our legal team has written to the Wits – the University of the Witwatersrand, acting on behalf of the Wits SRC and the #ACDP, regarding the ‘Wits Mandatory Vaccination Framework’.

In the letter they, inter alia:

  • Confirm that they act on behalf of Wits students who are not willing to be named for fear of intimidation, unfair discrimination, and related reprisal;
  • Object that Wits afforded a mere two days to staff, students, senior managers, organised labour, and other constituencies such as our client the ACDP (“affected persons”) to comment;
  • Request details about the decision itself and the various decision-makers;
  • Confirm that “should the undertaking sought not be given by 17:00 on Monday 18 October 2021, kindly note that our clients will have no choice but to seek urgent Court ordered relief, and in all the circumstances an appropriate costs order.”
  • Highlight at least 15 claims Wits makes;
  • Request that Wits provides “any and all scientific and factual proof including all raw data [including but not limited to published scientific papers, recorded research, all claimed tests, relevant statistics, and their sources, the basis of claiming future efficacy on unknown variants, proof of when the vaccines were developed], the exact legislation and labour laws that have or will be complied with and full proof of approval of the vaccines, which has/have been relied on and considered for all these claims.”
  • Request that Wits advises “whether Wits accepts full responsibility for indemnification and payment of damages for and flowing from any and all adverse events, temporary and/or permanent and/or secondary to the vaccination framework/policy? If not, why not? Does the manufacturer accept such liability? If the answer is no to any one of these questions, will those who vaccinate on account of the framework/policy have any recourse in terms of reasonable compensation?”

We await a reply from Wits.

#NoVaccinePassports #NoVaccineApartheid #NoVaccineMandates #NoVaccineDompas

[/vc_column_text]

To read / download the full letter on pdf, please click here:

READ WITS LETTER
[/vc_column][/vc_row]