Larry Neumeister, AP, April 8, 2009
Apartheid victims who accused automakers and IBM of helping the government of South Africa engage in violent repression to enforce racial segregation in the 1970s and ’80s can go to trial with their claims, a judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin rejected assertions by several countries that the lawsuits should not proceed because that might harm relations between the United States and South Africa.
The written decision was related to lawsuits filed about seven years ago on behalf of victims of apartheid. The lawsuits once targeted many more U.S. corporations, including oil companies and banking institutions, but the number of defendants was decreased after the lawsuits were tossed out by one judge and an appeals court that reinstated them said allegations needed more specifics.
After Scheindlin dismissed several more companies as defendants Wednesday, the plaintiffs were left to press their claims against IBM Corp., German automaker Daimler AG, Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Rheinmetall Group AG, the Swiss parent of an armaments maker.
The plaintiffs, at least thousands of people seeking unspecified damages, allege the automakers supplied military vehicles that let securities forces suppress black South Africans. IBM is accused of providing equipment used to track dissidents.
South African officials had said the efforts to compensate victims should be pursued within South Africa’s political and legal processes.
Defense lawyers have said corporations shouldn’t be penalized because they were encouraged to do business in South Africa during apartheid. Lawyers for the companies didn’t immediately return telephone messages Wednesday.
Plaintiffs attorney Michael D. Hausfeld praised the ruling, saying it will allow his clients to begin obtaining evidence from the companies that will show what they did in relation to South Africa during apartheid.
Hausfeld said that besides South Africa and the United States, countries including Germany, Switzerland and England had opposed letting the litigation proceed.