Blow to firms in apartheid legal case
September 3, 2009
By Wiseman Khuzwayo
Eight international conglomerates that escaped paying reparations to survivors of apartheid-era gross human rights violations have to now face litigation following a South African government decision not to continue opposing the lawsuits against them.
The conglomerates being sued in the class action are Barclays, Daimler, Ford, Fujitsu, General Motors, IBM, Rheinmetall and UBS.
The claim is based on the US's Alien Tort Statute, which allows people anywhere in the world to make claims against US-based corporations that have caused damage to them.
Justice Minister Jeff Radebe has written to the presiding judge of the US District Court of the southern district of New York reversing the government decision under former president Thabo Mbeki not to support lawsuits that were launched in New York by the victims and their organisation, Khulumani Support Group.
Penuell Maduna, who was justice minister under Mbeki, wrote to the court in July 2003 saying the government was opposed to the litigation because it would "discourage much-needed foreign investment".
A euphoric Khulumani said yesterday: "This represents a very significant shift from the government's 2003 position that (it) 'is not and will not be party to litigation' against companies that did business with and in South Africa during the apartheid period."
The lawsuits relate to aiding and abetting serious crimes such as torture and extrajudicial killings by the apartheid regime in violation of international law.
Khulumani is a plaintiff in the class action, along with 13 individuals.
In its judgment of April 8, the court said: "Corporate defendants merely accused of doing business with the apartheid government of South Africa have been dismissed. Claims that a corporation that aided and abetted particular acts could be liable for the breadth of harms committed under apartheid have been rejected.
"What survives (in terms) of claims are much narrower cases that this court hopes will move towards resolution after more than five years spent litigating motions to dismiss."
Radebe has written to the presiding judge saying the government was now of the view that the court was an appropriate forum to hear the remaining claims.
He added that the plaintiffs had separately indicated to the government their desire to have the matter resolved outside court processes - in South Africa, if possible.
The government welcomed this development, Radebe stated, and would be willing to offer its counsel to the parties in pursuit of a settlement, if requested to do so.
The April judgment substantially narrowed the claims, previously against 23 corporations, to eight. As a class action, it provides for the inclusion of all affected individuals.
|
|
