Comments on: The curious case of the apartheid lawsuits

By: Hentie Kruger

Hentie Kruger — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:06:37 +0000

It is actually a sad state of affairs that we are going to allow an American Court to decide on matters South African. Surely this matter could have been brought before a competent court her or do the plaintiffs not believe our judges have the required knowledge to rule on this. Try and sue an American company,soldier or anyone for that matter outside of the uSA and see how far you get. American justice for Americans, why not African justice for Africans, or will the amount of money won here not satisfy?

By: Jon Cayzer

Jon Cayzer — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:10:56 +0000

I am grateful for these intelligent perspectives. I heard that the Court of Appeal on Friday evening upheld the defendants’ injunction that the govt. must end its equivocation and clearly state its position.

By: Phemelo

Phemelo — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:43:14 +0000

@ Lyndall Beddy

The US governemnt passed the Zimbabwe Act some few years back.The Act states clearly that the US does not do business with Zimbabwe and so does her friends.Her friends are just as many as her enemies.There is complicity in the sanctions toward Zimbabwe by the friends of the US.

By not supporting sanctions,companies that failed to disinvest in our country were complicit in the atrocities of apartheid,finish and klaar.During apartheid we could not feel the sanctions you romanticise about simply because Eskom,Telkom,Barclays,Sanlam,General Motors,etc belonged to a few.That included infrastructure,recreational facilities,universities,service delivery,etc.Anyway you had knocked down prices of these commodities because in the 1980s, Honourable Barend Du Plessis had messed up the value of the rand.I do not know whether you remember the rand/dollar exchange in 1979 when brown bread was 13c.

The Khulumani case is long overdue.There is no reconcilliation without justice.Look how well the Germans are doing with their history.When they found out about the holocaust they did not deny.The Nuremburg trial was a start, for closure.

We instead we took the TRC route.The Rwandans have taken the GACACA route to meet out justice.If you feel no one killed for you to live happily ever after in your CT suburb,then you might as well join AHMENIDEJAD to deny the holocaust.

By: Lyndall Beddy

Lyndall Beddy — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:19:51 +0000

It would be very good for historians if the case went to court, and the real history of apartheid disclosed, but that is unlikely. More likely a settlement equal to legal costs will be offered and hailed as a victory by the attorneys. The wrong party is being sued.

What happened when the American companies disinvested? South African whites bought the assets at knock down prices and continued the businesses, luckily, or there would have been much unemployment. Moreover the American attorneys seem unaware of the fact that reputable people , including Helen Suzman, Alan Paton and Buthelezi, called for no disinvestment from and no sanctions against South Africa, and the reasons why.

The proper party to sue would be the government of SA who got the assets built up during apartheid (eg Sasol, Iscor etc), and what would that achieve?

What caused the SA government to change its mind? Nothing – it had no choice.

Do a bit of research and you will see that the American courts had ALREADY given permission for the case to proceed BEFORE the SA government “withdrew its objection”.

Zuma is just making a virtue out of a necessity.

By: Peter Joffe

Peter Joffe — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:41:04 +0000

Is a gun shop owner who sells a gun to a man who murders someone, complicit in the crime? Is Daimler Benz liable for damages if someone kills themselves in one of their cars? Is SAAB guilty of a war crime if their jet is used to blast a school?
Just like the huge fines that get dished out to corporations that are involved in collusion, who are the real beneficiaries of these court cases? Land is taken from people wrongly.
The land is improved, made productive and bush is turned into food producing farms to the benefit of all.
The farms are then taken back and given to people who were not even a living when the land was taken in the first place and it return to bush in very quick time and the improvement are not accounted for.
The improvements made benefit no one and a vital resourse of the country is destroyed (see Zimbabawe) and this is now happening here.

By: Blackbravo

Blackbravo — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:38:40 +0000

This is purely a matter of policy and the President’s ‘dapper dude’ attitude to it is cause for concern.
We are now in a recession and post 2010 June we will require vast sums to return to our market position in Africa. Without international investors we will not be optimally placed to take advantage of the opportunities investment in Africa will provide.
The President’s cavallier attitude and blatant lack of sophisticated handle on policy will not bode well for our markets!

By: Owen

Owen — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:05:30 +0000

Nay – there is nothing devious about this nor is there a policy change, someone has just realised that they can make a pile of dough out of this and that is always a politicians policy. All else then has to fit the bill, so to speak.