"This would apply even if the case were brought due to the company’s own acts of negligence, fraud or malice." Uh, yeah, no. I fully support my country's stance on this. We simply cannot afford to indemnify an multinational company from their own product.
Throughout the chain of manufacturing, sales and distribution will be a myriad of people with a profit motive, so even if feedback starts to be received that the drug is causing nasty things to happen, the risk of news suppression and continued sale is probably high. E.g., if power goes out at a storage facility and the temperature at which the drug is held exceeds recommended levels, people might still sell it to get their income and avoid blame even though they know the batch has limited usefulness. Pfizer probably has to protect itself from these elements of fraud and / or negligence which are probably exacerbated by the basic risk of the drug's effects and efficacy.
If the drug has been rushed to market, it is probably not only the drug's effects which have been compromised, but the security and integrity of the entire supply chain that will support how, when and where the drug is administered and by whom.
Yes, Pfizer could just package 100 million vials of tap water and send them to SA. However, whether SA was powerless to do something to the co or not as a result of the agreements it had signed, I very much doubt Pfizer would last long after the news of its behaviour reached the rest of the world. I am sure it still needs to ensure that it does the best job it can.
On the other hand, politicians are masters of the blame game and of wriggling out of any agreement. Even if their language does not allow for deniability, circumstances may change so that old agreements are rendered unenforceable.
I have no doubt that if SA (or many other countries) found it to their advantage to not honour their side of the agreement when circumstances allowed, that they would do so - potentially even without raising any spurious reason to do so other than "we don't want to and you can't make us".
So although I find the terms Pfizer negotiated distasteful, I do not blame them.
I do wonder, though, whether their terms are universally the same for all countries they deal with here. I suspect not, because SA does not have the power of USA or China or even Australia. It is far easier to say to SA 'we do not believe you, so give us the rights to your military base as a guarantee' than it is to say this to many other countries.
But, much of the blame for this poor negotiating position rests with SA itself.