Saturday, May 21, 2016
LAWYERS NOT VICTIMS, MADE MONEY FROM PFIZER IN NIGERIA
Lawyers, not victims, made money from Pfizer settlement Category: Society Published: Sunday, 16 January 2011 23:07
The awkward execution of the suits against Pfizer, driven by the inordinate desire to make easy money by the elites from the suffering of the impoverished victims of the 1996 Trovan clinical test in Kano, is the chief reason a deserving compensation continues to elude the test victims. Our investigations reveal that rather than make Pfizer accountable for deliberately inflicting Nigerian infants with death and permanent disabilities, Nigerian officials subjected themselves to the dictates of the pharmaceutical company with the hope of lining their pockets with money from Pfizer’s huge financial reserve. Government resentment In 2001, six years before the government formally accepted that Nigerian infants were used as guinea pigs by Pfizer by instituting civil and criminal suits against the multinational pharmaceutical company, the victims had already instituted an action against Pfizer and the federal government at a Kano State High Court. But no sooner had the action commenced than all sorts of intrigues started unfolding.  First, the federal government, through the Office of the Attorney General, contested the suit and asked that the matter be dismissed by the court. The government even proceeded to ask for cost against the victims. “I was demoralised as a Nigerian. Where lays our patriotism if your people are suffering since 1996 and the best the Nigerian government could do is to stand with a multinational company against her citizenry?” Said Kunle Ishola, of Omotimirin, Ishola & Associates, counsel to the victims. Soon after, the presiding judge, C.C. Nwaogwugwu, ruled that the suit should commence and be executed on behalf of all the victims. Shortly after, he was posted out of Kano State and subsequently compulsorily resigned from the bench. After this, the case was adjourned indefinitely and remained in the doldrums for another nine months until another judge, Adamu Hobon, assumed jurisdiction. Any hope that the victims and their counsel might have had as to getting redress for the ill meted out to them soon fizzled out as Mr. Hobon extricated himself from the case, citing personal reasons.  According to Mr. Ishola, sensing there was an underhanded ploy by unknown forces to frustrate the victims from getting justice, he filed a motion of discontinuance of the suit from the Federal High Court in Kano before commencing a fresh action against Pfizer in Connecticut, in the United States of America which is still ongoing. Ethical questions Following the $75 million negotiated settlement reached by the federal and Kano State government with Pfizer, counsels to the government have been accused of ethical malpractices and sheer profiteering from the suffering of the victims. Despite the fact that suffering victims were completely neglected and no provisions were made for their care, the government made outrageous claims of money spent taking care of the victims. In its original statement of claims, the federal government asked for some N104 million, money which it purportedly spent on the provision of health care and rehabilitation facilities for the affected children; N166 million in carrying out a public education exercise, and N217 million in training and remuneration. In a similar vein, the Kano State government had asked for $25 million spent for the treatment, compensation and support for the victims as well as $350 million used in providing support for the victims from 1996-2006. It is Mr. Ishola’s view that this was an indication that all along, government officials planned on enriching themselves from the victim’s plight. He also said that the government claims amounted to perjury. However, SimmonsCooper, counsel to the federal and Kano State governments, explained that the government’s claims are “based on legally accepted theories of evidence”. “They are extrapolations from budgetary spending which have been admissible in courts in other parts of the world,” the firm said. The criminal trial at the Kano State High Court also experienced a lot of irregularities. The trial judge had granted the government a warrant of arrest on officials of Pfizer who were directly linked to the clinical trial. However, instead of executing the arrest, it became characteristic of the Kano State Attorney General Aliyu Umar at every court hearing to plead for more time on behalf of Pfizer under the guise that talks were still ongoing with the pharmaceutical company. “It is unheard of anywhere for the prosecuting counsel to plead on behalf of the accused in a criminal case,” said Mr. Ishola. “It goes to show that the government wasn’t interested in securing justice for the victims as it would get a quick settlement with Pfizer. It is a conspiracy of the elite to fleece the victim,” said Mr. Ishola while describing the shoddy way the trial was handled. The government lawyers, SimmonsCooper, have been accussed of breaching professional ethics when they entered into negotiations on behalf of the victims in the absence of the victim’s counsel. “If you are a thoroughbred lawyer you should not act on behalf of another person’s client,” said Mr. Ishola. However, SimmonsCooper denied this. “Every step of the way during the case and discussion with Pfizer, we interfaced with and informed the lawyers representing some of the victims including receiving information from them in the United States about what they considered appropriate for the victims they represent,” the law firm said in correspondence with NEXT. They did, however, admit that counsel to the victims “were not in direct discussions in Kano’s settlement case”, saying that “it may be pre-emptive to carry on the same discussion with some of them”. Tunde Irukera, the ambulance chaser Tunde Irukera, who we learnt actually got the government brief for SimmonsCooper, lied when he told NEXT that he had never had any contact with the victims’ lawyers prior to 2007. According to Mr. Ishola, Tunde Irukera (then working as an attorney in the US) had reached out to him in 2001 at the early stages of the victims’ litigation with Pfizer requesting to be part of the plaintiff team. “He wrote to us in 2001 commending us for the good job we were doing. We became suspicious of his motives when he started talking about fee sharing and cost,” he said. Mr. Ishola claimed that from the outset, Mr. Irukera, whom he described as an ambulance chaser (a deregoratory term used to describe lawyers who specialise in finding victims in order to make money from their settlements), was not out to secure justice for the victims. Rather, he was out to enrich himself off the pains of the victims. SimmonsCooper completely refuted Mr. Ishola’s claims. The law firm claimed to have been aware of the victims’ suit while doing “extensive research and investigation upon our engagement in 2006.” “At no time did Babatunde Irukera ever reach out to Mr. Ishola, neither did he know or have any contact with him until June 2007 in court in Kano when they met for the first time”, said SimmonsCooper in response to our enquiry. But NEXT has been given copies of three email messages purportedly sent by Mr. Irukera to Mr. Ishola, suggesting that SimmonsCooper is not being truthful. The first email sent on Thursday, March 22, 2001 at 17:17:22 EST (Eastern Standard Time) was sent using the online email address, BIrukera, to Mr. Ishola. The email read in part: “I have reviewed most of the documentation publicly available, and I believe there is a cause of action against Pfizer. It is clear that there are violations that are inexcusable at law. The requirement for informed consent in clinical trials is sacrosanct and it appears that explains why they had 100% consent in the trial process. Also, the ethical question as to why a trial will be conducted in the middle of an epidemic is unanswered. … Please respond to discuss fee and cost sharing arrangements and of course, current litigation efforts and other strategies.” On Monday, 23 April, 2001, at exactly 09:28:39 EDT (eastern Daylight Time) via the same email address, Mr. Irukera also sent another email to Mr. Ishola. It read in part: “I read the material in the papers and I think you did a fantastic job of it. It is high time we brought some tort reform to Nigeria. Like I said previously, the action may preclude the US action but I have been conducting additional research and we may even bring the action so long as they both seek to achieve different objectives. …Like I said, I plan on being in Nigeria from the end of the first week in May for some days, so if you are inclined you can have an appointment set up to discuss this matter further. I already gave you my contact information but I do not have yours. Once again, congratulations and keep up the excellent work.” Then on Wednesday, October 10, 2001 at exactly 10:29:59 EDT, Mr. Ishola received the third email from Mr. Irukera. It read in part: “Compliments and how are you? I’m sorry we did not meet in May. I was around for a limited period of time and I made every effort. In any case, what is the deal with the action? I have not seen anything in the news recently as I have been following it. I would be interested to see how the action is turning out.” Kunle Omotimirin, of Omotimirin, Ishola & Associates, explained that when it became clear to Mr. Irukera that he could not penetrate their ranks, he approached the former AGF, Bayo Ojo, who gave him the government briefs. Mr. Omotimirin was of the view that Mr. Irukera knew that he lacked the clout to execute such a huge case, and he therefore, invited the former attorney general of Lagos State, Yemi Osinbajo, into the case. It was Mr. Osibanjo who then pulled Maryam Uwais into the team to form the government’s legal team. “He dragged them into the mud. He used big-name lawyers like Osinbajo and Uwais. He needed their expertise and stature to gain his aim.” Pfizer compensation: who got what? In 2009, when Pfizer and the Kano State government reached a negotiated settlement, the multinational company agreed to pay $75 million (N11.25 billion) in compensation. However, going by the sharing ratio, only a meagre proportion of that sum was earmarked for the victims. Of the $75 million, $10 million (N1.5 billion) was to be collected by government counsels, as legal fees for their services to the Kano State government. SimmonsCooper also earned an additional $5 million (N50 million) for their services to the federal government, paid by Pfizer. $30 million (N4.5 billion) was earmarked for the construction of hospitals in the Kano metropolis. Another $35 million (N5.25 billion) was earmarked for the 200 victims Pfizer claimed to have conducted the tests on. However, in compensating the victims, Pfizer as well the Kano State government deviously attached some conditions which victims are expected to meet before they are paid. They also came up with the idea of a graduated settlement for the victims. According to the arrangement, victims are to get between $10,000 and $175,000. The amount a victim would be paid is also subjected to the decision of a committee known as the Trovan Settlement Committee. The composition of the settlement committee is also a source of controversy as the victims were not represented in it. The Trovan Settlement Committee is a six-member committee made up of three Kano State appointees and three members appointed by Pfizer. “How can you be a judge in a case where you are the accused?” argued Mr. Ishola. According to him, this is a ploy by Pfizer to deprive the victims of proper compensation. The victims’ lawyers further said if the committee decides to pay each victim $10,000, Pfizer would be paying the 200 victims a paltry $2 million combined while government counsel would have earned $15 million for handling the case. “Their aim was to make money,” argued Mr. Ishola. “If their aim was not to make money, they would not collect money until the victims have been compensated.” SimmonsCooper, which said it was not represented in the committee, however, explained that what the Kano State government did was to try to alleviate the suffering of the people by earmarking some sum for them. “Since Kano’s case was not the victims’ case in court and the victims were not direct parties to the action, it was decided that it was impossible for Kano to release Pfizer from any liability to the victims or in any way compel unwilling victims (particularly those in court in New York) to draw from the funds set up by Pfizer.” Source: http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Home/5663712-146/lawyers_not_victims_made_money_from.csp IN THE FOURTH PART OF OUR EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE PFIZER TROVAN TRIALS CASE, WE EXAMINE HOW CONTROVERSIAL DNA TESTING IS DENYING VICTIMS THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION