The Constant Gardener

We interviewed Subject on three occasions of nine minutes, fifty-four minutes, and ninety minutes respectively. At Subject's request our interviews were conducted on neutral ground (the house of a friend) in discreet circumstances. Subject is aged twenty-four, of Anglo-Indian birth, ed. U.k. convent schools (Rc), adopted daughter of professional parents (lawyer and doctor), both strong Catholics. Subject is an honors graduate of Exeter University (english, American and Commonwealth Arts), of obvious intelligence and highly nervous. Our impression of her was that, in addition to being grief-stricken, she was in considerable fear. For instance, Subject made several statements which she then withdrew, e.g.: "Tessa was murdered to keep her quiet." E.g.: "Anybody who takes on the pharmaceutical industry is liable to get her throat cut." E.g.: "Some pharmaceutical companies are arms dealers in shining raiment." Pressed about these statements, she refused to substantiate them and requested they be wiped from the record. She also dismissed the suggestion that BLUHM could have committed the Turkana murders. BLUHM and QUAYLE, she said, were not an "item" but they were "the two best people on earth" and those around them "just had dirty minds."

Under further questioning, Subject first claimed to be bound by the Official Secrets Act, then by oath of secrecy to the deceased. For our third and final meeting we adopted a more hostile attitude to Subject, pointing out to her that by withholding information she could be shielding Tessa's murderers and impeding the search for BLUHM. We attach edited transcripts at Appendix A and B. Subject has read this transcript but refuses to sign it.

APPENDIX A

Q. Did you at any time assist or accompany Tessa Quayle on field expeditions?

A. At weekends and in my spare time I accompanied Arnold and Tessa on several field trips to Kibera slum and up-country in order to assist at field clinics and witness the administration of medicines. This is the particular remit of Arnold's NGO. Several of the medicines that Arnold examined turned out to be long past their expiry date and had destabilized, though they might work to a certain level. Others were inappropriate to the condition they were supposed to treat. We were also able to confirm a common phenomenon experienced in other parts of Africa, namely that the indications and contra-indications on some packets had been rewritten for the Third World market in order to broaden the use of the medicine far beyond its licensed application in developed countries, e.g., a painkiller used in Europe or U.S. for the relief of extreme cancer cases was being offered as a cure for period pain and minor joint aches. Contra-indications were not given. We also established that even when the African doctors diagnosed correctly, they routinely prescribed the wrong treatment due to lack of adequate instructions.

Q. Was ThreeBees one of the distributors affected?

A. Everyone knows that Africa is the pharmaceutical dustbin of the world and ThreeBees is one of the main distributors of pharmaceutical products in Africa.

Q. So was ThreeBees affected in this instance?

A. In certain instances ThreeBees was the distributor.

Q. The guilty distributor?

A. All right.

Q. In how many instances? What proportion?

A. (after much prevarication) All.

Q. Repeat, please. Are you saying that in every case where you found fault with a product, ThreeBees was the distributor of that product?

A. I don't think we should be talking like this while Arnold may be alive.

APPENDIX B

Q. Was there one particular product that Arnold and Tessa felt particularly strongly about, do you remember?

A. This just can't be right. It can't be.

Q. Ghita. We're trying to understand why Tessa was killed and why you think that by discussing these things we put Arnold in greater danger than he's already in.

A. It was everywhere.

Q. What was? Why are you crying? Ghita.

A. It was killing people. In the villages. In the slums. Arnold was sure of it. It was a good drug, he said. With five more years' development they'd probably get there. You couldn't quarrel with the idea of the drug. It was short-course, cheap and patient-friendly. But they'd been too quick. The tests had been selectively designed. They hadn't covered all the side-effects. They had tested on pregnant rats and monkeys and rabbits and dogs, and had no problems. When they got to humans — all right, there were problems, but there always are. That's the gray area the drug companies exploit. It's at the mercy of statistics and statistics prove anything you want them to prove. In Arnold's opinion they had been too intent on getting the product onto the market ahead of a competitor. There are so many rules and regulations that you'd think that wasn't possible, but Arnold said it happened all the time. Things look one way when you're sitting in a plush U.N. office in Geneva. Quite another when you're on the ground.

Q. Who was the manufacturer?