DA poses question to Radebe over government position on Alien Torts Act claims
The Democratic Alliance (DA) has placed a parliamentary question to Justice Minister Jeff Radebe on the order paper to establish if, why and on what mandate he changed the position of the SA government in respect of the Alien Torts Act claims in New York by two groups of apartheid victims.
It was reported in September 2009 when he wrote to the New York court that the SA government now thought it was an appropriate forum to hear the claims that senior officials were hastily advising disbelieving investor companies that the position of the Mbeki government was not in fact being reversed. We cannot imagine that Cabinet Ministers in the economic cluster were party to this reversal. Daimler has reportedly already indicated to both Radebe and Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies that it is "considering its options regarding future production locations for its C Class cars" (Mail and Guardian). Does this government really want to destroy jobs, and lose the confidence-inspiring distinction of building Mercedes-Benz?
Our question explicitly asks whether Radebe's letter reflects the views of President Zuma. It bears the hallmarks of the Zuma model of leadership, which tries to please everyone. Was the reversal of Mbeki's outright opposition to the more opaque position taken by Radebe prompted by the victims?
No-one would begrudge citizens who suffered demonstrable personal loss as a result of intentional wrongs the satisfaction of receiving payment of damages if a basis in international law is established. But there is a whiff of venality about the victim's class actions (see here). They were looking for multi-billion dollar "reparations" against companies that simply did business in SA until Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Federal District Court reduced the claims to a handful of companies where some connection between actions and consequences could in her view be argued.
Is this government trying to compensate for the inadequate reparations made to TRC-declared victims by the predecessor administration? If so, how does the enrichment of two groups of litigants achieve this end?
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION POSED:
Ms M Smuts to Minister of Justice
Did he convey a view on the desirability of litigation brought in the USA by parties including Khulumani and Mr L Ntsebeza against international companies under the Alien Torts Claims Act to a court or courts in New York, if so...
1. what was the position conveyed 2) did the position (i) reverse (ii) change (iii) confirm the position taken by President Mbeki, former Minister Maduna and former Minister Mabandla, fi so, why, 3) did the position reflect the views of President Zuma, if not why not 4) was it approved by (a) Cabinet (b) Ministers in the Economic cluster, if not why not?
Statement issued by Dene Smuts, MP, Democratic Alliance shadow minister of justice and constitutional development, January 17 2010
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
