The WHO's Pandemic Agreement says nothing about Freedom of Expression

THE World Health Organization's long-awaited Pandemic Agreement has finally been adopted. At over 30 pages, it is comprehensive in ambition addressing everything from vaccine access to supply chain resilience. But when it comes to one of the most critical ingredients for effective public health in a democracy freedom of expression the Agreement has remarkably little to say.

- PROFESSOR DONRICH THALDAR

In fact, it says almost nothing.

Take, for instance, this key provision: "Each Party shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies."

This sounds constructive. But read it again. "As appropriate"? According to whom? And what policies, exactly? The Agreement doesn't say. It offers no guidance on whether open public debate complete with disagreement, critique, and messy facts is essential to building trust in science and public institutions.

Nor does it warn against the dangers of censorship during public health crises. It simply leaves it to each country to decide for itself what "appropriate" means. In other words, it takes no position. And this is precisely the problem. In the name of trust, governments during the Covid-19 pandemic did not always build it they sometimes undermined it. South Africa offers two powerful examples.

First, Dr Glenda Gray, one of the country's most respected scientists and then-president of the Medical Research Council, publicly criticised aspects of the government's lockdown measures. The reaction from the Department of Health was swift: the Director-General requested that her employer, the Medical Research Council, investigate her.