|
Bid to revive apartheid cases
25/01/2006 08:05 - (SA)
New York - A lawyer for victims of apartheid in South Africa tried to convince three federal appeals court judges that American corporations can be held accountable even if the new SA government and the US government disagree.
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan did not immediately rule on Tuesday. It said it believed it was bound by a US Supreme Court declaration that called for a consideration of US foreign policy interests in such cases.
Plaintiffs' lawyer Paul Hoffman conceded that lawsuits brought against US corporations including International Business Machines Corp, car makers, oil companies and banking institutions were written too broadly and needed to be more specific.
But he said the litigation brought on behalf of millions of class members who suffered during a 40-year period in South Africa should not have been tossed out as they were in 2004 by US District Court Judge John E Sprizzo.
Sprizzo had noted that Congress had supported and encouraged business investment in South Africa as a way to achieve greater respect for human rights and a reduction in poverty.
He had said he must be "extremely cautious in permitting suits here based upon a corporation's doing business in countries with less than stellar human rights records, especially since the consequences of such an approach could have significant, if not disastrous, effects on international commerce."
'It's not your business'
Hoffman said that if the appeals court revived the class action litigation, the plaintiffs might choose to drop some of the broad allegations against banking institutions. But he said allegations would remain, for instance, that IBM created software that enabled the South African government to more easily track citizens.
Appeals Judge Edward R. Korman noted that the new South African government had made it clear it did not want the case to proceed.
"They're saying, 'American courts, it's not your business,"' he said. "No other country would entertain this lawsuit."
Defendants' lawyer Francis B Barron reminded the 2nd Circuit that the US and other countries decided to fight apartheid without an economic boycott.
"Those who argued for an economic boycott lost the debate," he said. "American corporations were permitted and encouraged to do business in South Africa."
In a brief filed with the appeals court, the US government said the litigation would interfere with South Africa's reconciliation and redress efforts and would cause "significant tension between the United States and South Africa".
|
News
