Group items tagged

The dissenting judge (in three parts of the judgment), Judge Edward Korman, stated that “[the] lawsuit [is] an insult to the post-apartheid, black-majority government of a free people”. He goes on to say that a decision to hear these cases would “reflect[] the worst sort of ‘judicial imperialism’ … [and] send the message that the United States does not respect the ability of South African society to administer justice by implying that US courts are better placed to judge the pace and degree of South Africa’s national reconciliation”.

The Khulumani case, specifically, is neither about ongoing “political” processes nor about national reconciliation. It’s about damaged people seeking justice and redress that is, in fact, not available to them in their own country. The case is not about challenging the state’s sovereignty.

"The story of economic development of this country [South Africa] is intimately bound up with foreign capital, technology and expertise," read the appellant's papers, quoting former South African finance minister Owen Horwood.

"We have obtained some of the top business leaders in South Africa to serve on the Defence Advisory Board in order to advise me from the inside, not only about the armaments industry, but also about the best methods to be applied within the Defence Force," Botha is quoted as having told Parliament's House of Assembly.

The lawsuit was based on common law principles of liability and on the Alien Tort Claims Act, which grants US courts jurisdiction over certain violations of international law, regardless of where they occur.