To enjoy the full Mail & Guardian online experience: please upgrade your browser
12 May 2008 17:15
The United States Supreme Court said on Monday that it cannot intervene in an important dispute over the rights of apartheid victims to sue US corporations in US courts because four of the nine justices had to sit out the case over apparent conflicts.
The result is that a lawsuit accusing some prominent companies of violating international law by assisting South Africa’s former apartheid government will go forward.
The court’s hands were tied by federal laws that require at least six justices to hear any case before them.
Short of the required number by one, the court took the only path available to it and upheld an appeals court ruling allowing the suit to proceed.
The justices have ties to Bank of America, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Colgate-Palmolive, Credit Suisse, Exxon Mobil, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Nestle, among nearly three dozen companies that asked the high court to step in.
Business groups, the Bush administration and the current South African government also sought the high court’s intervention. They argued that the lawsuit is damaging international relations, threatening to hurt South Africa’s economic development and punishing the companies using a fuzzy concept of aiding violations of international law.
Last year’s ruling by the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York “allows an unprecedented and sprawling lawsuit to move forward and represents a dramatic expansion of US law”, the administration said in court papers.
Lawyers for the South Africans bringing the complaint said it was premature for the Supreme Court to get involved.
The lawyers said they plan to narrow their complaint, perhaps omitting some corporations and showing more clearly how the companies assisted the apartheid government.
The case involves the Alien Tort Claims Act, an 18th-century law that allows foreigners to sue in US courts over international law violations.
The lawsuit raises sticky questions about US policy toward governments accused of repression. For example, the administration said the government may impose targeted sanctions while still allowing commerce in order to encourage reform. The suit could undermine that policy.—Sapa-AP
Create Account | Lost Your Password?