http://allafrica.com/stories/201606230828.html
By Rejul Bejoy
US Supreme Court upholds 2014 ruling to dismiss claims against both
companies
In a new setback in the 14-year-old battle to hold multi-national
corporations responsible for human rights violations under apartheid, the
United States Supreme Court declined this week to hear the case.
The case was brought by several South Africans, including Lungisile
Ntsebeza, whose brother Dumisa Ntsebeza is one of the lawyers in the case.
Several of them were former employees of Ford who were arrested and
tortured after Ford released information about protests to the apartheid
government.
The denial by the Supreme Court of the right to appeal on Monday 20 June
means that an earlier ruling by the lower US District Court stands - that
IBM and Ford could not be held liable, in US courts, for actions by its
subsidiaries based in South Africa in favour of the apartheid regime.
The South Africans sued the corporations under the Alien Tort Statute
(ATS), which allows non-citizens to pursue civil claims in US district
courts for violations of international law or US treaties. Initially, 23
companies had been sued for having relations with the apartheid regime.
Since 1980, US courts have interpreted the Statute to allow foreign
citizens to sue for human-rights violations that may have occurred outside
of the United States. However, the Supreme Court has never specified if
corporations can be held liable for their actions under this law.
Additionally, it is still unclear if entities can be held liable for
actions that did not occur in the United States. In the absence of a final
decision on that question, lower courts have required varying degrees of
the planning of human rights violations to have actually occurred in the
United States.
As a result, by 2013, claims had been dismissed against all corporations,
except for Ford and IBM, due to an inability to prove that the
corporations had planned their human rights violations within the United
States.
Before it came to the Supreme Court, the Ntsebeza case was combined with a
similar case brought by Sakwe Bantiulo, against Ford and IBM, assigned to
a US district court in Manhattan. (Bantiulo was supported by the Khulumani
Support Network, a South African organisation representing about 100,000
victims of apartheid-related human rights violations.)
Ntsebeza's and Balintulo's legal teams worked together as one set of
plaintiffs through the district and appeals courts. However, the petition
to the Supreme Court was only concerning Ntsebeza's case. (Ntsebeza's
legal team was helped by Harvard's Human Rights Law Clinic.)
Support for the claimants
Support for both plaintiffs came from a variety of organisations,
including former Truth and Reconciliation commissioners, various human
rights NGOs, COSATU, and the South African Council of Churches. Former US
Ambassador David Scheffer submitted a brief to the Supreme Court
supporting the plaintiffs.
The government of South Africa was initially opposed to the lawsuit,
claiming that it would damage foreign investor perceptions of the country.
However, in 2009, the government officially reversed its position. In a
letter to the United States Supreme Court, Minister of Justice Jeffrey
Radebe stated that his government was of the view that the "[Supreme]
Court is the appropriate forum to hear the remaining claims of aiding and
abetting in violation of international law."
Ford and IBM during apartheid
In their arguments to the Second Circuit Court, Ntsebeza and the others
argued that Ford and IBM should be held accountable as they were "U.S.
corporations that, through their conduct in the United States, provided
direct support to the South African government during apartheid and/or
were purposefully complicit in the human rights violations committed by
the apartheid government and security forces... [and] produced the very
products that enabled the apartheid government to run and maintain the
apartheid system and to oppress, control, suppress, intimidate,
denationalize, and otherwise violate the rights of black South Africans."
They claim that Ford's US board made key decisions to manufacture
specialised vehicles for apartheid security forces in violation of US
sanctions and retaliated against employees who took part in anti-apartheid
protests.
IBM, they say, provided database and information storage services that
allowed the apartheid government to implement the race-based
classification system.
Several of the South Africans in the court case were former employees of
Ford who had been arrested and tortured after Ford released information
about protest activities to the apartheid government. They believe that
Ford and IBM's US supervision of South African subsidiaries was a strong
enough connection to allow the companies to be prosecuted under the Alien
Tort Statute.
In their submitted briefs, Ford and IBM did not deny that their South
African subsidiaries had helped the apartheid government. But they argued
that they could not be held liable in the United States, as general
supervision of their South African subsidiaries was not a strong enough
connection to establish that the US headquarters had planned and supported
the human rights violations.
Additionally, they contended that the Statute did not allow for corporate
liability, especially when the corporation that had committed the
violations were based in another country (as their subsidiaries
technically were).
Claims dismissed
In August 2014, US District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin dismissed the claims
on grounds that the Statute did not allow for corporations to be held
liable, when all relevant violations of international law had taken place
outside of the United States. In her opinion she stated, "that these
plaintiffs are left without relief in an American court is regrettable"
but said she was bound to follow previous cases, "no matter what my
personal view of the law may be."
In February 2016, Ntsebeza's legal team wrote a petition to the Supreme
Court, appealing against the dismissal of their case. They highlighted
inconsistent standards among lower courts on what actually constitutes
"aiding and abetting in human rights violations" and they asked the
Supreme Court to answer the fundamental question of whether corporations
can be held liable under the Statute.
The denial of appeal means the Supreme Court did not see this as a strong
enough court case or did not want to answer either of those questions. As
it is the highest court in the United States, Ford and IBM are officially
free from the civil action by Ntsebeza.
But the corporations are still not quite off the hook. In a press
statement last year, Khulumani indicated that it would be submitting an
appeal to the US District Court against the dismissal of the Bantiulo case
against Ford and IBM on the basis of new evidence from the South African
Department of Justice archives.
If that does not work, then Khulumani still has the option of appealing in
the Second Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.
--
His Omnipotence Barack Hussein Obama, declared himself "Pooptator" of all
mentally ill homosexuals and crossdressers, while declaring where they
will defecate.
Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $19 trillion in the seven
years he has been in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America. The only American president to deliberately import a
lethal infectious disease from Africa, Ebola.
Loretta Fuddy, killed after she "verified" Obama's phony birth
certificate.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptitude.
Obama continues his muslim goal of disarming America while ObamaCare
increases insurance premiums 300% and leaves millions without health care.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---