I think that is inflammatory framing @ferialhaffajee . The trials were done using established protocols that are well vetted by ethics committees. The Oxford vaccine was trialled in UK, Brazil and SA to obtain suitable geographic, racial and other diversity. https://twitter.com/ferialhaffajee/status/1344237441008291843

Had there been no trials in developing world, results would be less robust as to whether drugs will work (t)here. SA was a proud participant in the Oxford trials, led by @WitsUniversity, which allowed for substantial knowledge transfer https://www.wits.ac.za/covid19vaccine/news/updates/the-first-covid-19-vaccine-trial-in-south-africa-begins.html

The J&J/Aspen agreement was between two companies. It sees significant intellectual property transfer to Aspen. That we have domestic manufacturing capability is something to be celebrated (not decried as "cheap manufacturing", especially in a R3bn facility).

As we learned with antiretrovirals, SA manufacturing can scale up and deliver world class products to meet SA government procurement needs.

But here is the real question: what are SA gvt procurement plans for Covid vaccines?

As far as I can tell, there is none. Here is some coverage of how far behind SA was at the beginning of the month. While you say SA should access substantial consignments, in fact J&J offered the gvt vaccines at cost. But it appears no one responded https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-03/african-nation-worst-hit-by-covid-19-falling-behind-on-vaccines

I find this default assumption that there is some sort of conspiracy against "poor" countries unfortunate. Botswana, Namibia, Rwanda have all placed substantial orders, as has Thailand, Vietnam and others. We should be asking what SA's procurement is doing?