Covidex Controversy

Covidex is a locally developed herbal remedy from Uganda, created by scientists at Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST) under the leadership of Prof. Patrick Ogwang. Made from a blend of three indigenous plants, Covidex was introduced as a supportive treatment for viral infections, including COVID-19. Prof. Ogwang and many users claimed it was effective in both preventing and treating the virus.

The National Drug Authority (NDA) of Uganda later approved Covidex only as a supportive treatment, not as a cure or preventive measure for COVID-19. The NDA clarified that its approval was based on initial assessments, existing literature, and safety studies, but not on randomized controlled trials—the scientific gold standard for proving medical efficacy. As a result, the manufacturer was required to revise its public claims, removing any suggestion that Covidex could cure or prevent COVID-19.

NDA Statement: “The innovators have removed unsubstantiated claims… and revised it to supportive treatment in the management of viral infections.”

A legal dispute soon emerged over the intellectual property (IP) rights to Covidex between Prof. Ogwang and his employer, MUST. The court ultimately ruled in Ogwang’s favor, granting him ownership of the product.

However, this raised a broader question: Is Covidex eligible for IP protection under Ugandan law? While a patent would be the typical form of protection for a pharmaceutical product, Uganda’s Industrial Property Act of 2014 excludes pharmaceutical inventions from patent eligibility. This is in line with Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which exempts Least Developed Countries (LDCs) like Uganda from granting pharmaceutical patents due to economic and infrastructural constraints. This provision allows such countries to access low-cost generic medicines, benefiting public health systems.

As Covidex gained attention and entered international markets such as the UK, Canada, and China, scientists and regulators continued to urge for randomized controlled clinical trials to verify its claimed effectiveness. Prof. Ogwang has appealed for funding and research support to carry out these trials, which are essential for securing global recognition of Covidex as a legitimate treatment, not just a supportive remedy.

Conclusion

The Covidex case underscores the complex intersection of traditional medicine, scientific validation, and intellectual property law. While widely accepted by the public and gaining international interest, Covidex’s long-term success and acceptance in global healthcare depend on rigorous scientific research. The controversy also brings to light critical issues about ownership of innovations, the limitations of IP protection in low-income countries, and the role of indigenous knowledge in modern medicine.