> “South Africa is a very corrupt state, it's just too easy for that system to act in a way that does not have integrity.” Being a corrupt state does not imply

> “South Africa is a very corrupt state, it's just too easy for that system to act in a way that does not have integrity.” Being a corrupt state does not imply a corrupt legal system. SA’s legal system is based very closely on the UK’s (with some Dutch law and African customary law tweaks thrown in) and is considered to be very good actually. Some legal systems around the world are weakened by lobbying and politically placed judges and there is lack of evidence that this is a problem in the SA legal system. A recent demonstration of this resilience to corruption is the fact that the courts recently put the ex-president Zuma in jail; someone with a lot of corrupt power. Besides, protecting yourself against a corrupt legal system with beneficial legal clauses just doesn’t make sense. Why even use a contract at all if you don’t believe in the legal system? They put those clauses in there precisely because the legal system is good and they will be held to account. No, Pfizer is just being a bully because they think they can get away with it. Same thing happens every day when individuals feel trapped into signing unfavourable employment contracts because they are too far along and feel that there are no reasonable alternatives. I think that it’s a good thing that this generated bad PR for Pfizer.