The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions is to act as Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) in the class action lawsuit being brought against South African firms who collaborated with the apartheid regime in a District Court in the USA on 6 January 2010.
Our decision rests on the belief that the apartheid system was based on the white South African minority striving to secure a cheap and pliant workforce to reap the benefits of the country's vast natural resources, in particular its mineral wealth. Our members were thus among the worst affected, and our organisations were at the forefront of the anti-apartheid movement.
We therefore fully support the position taken by the Government of South Africa in its letter of 1 September 2009 and we believe that this litigation is an important part of the rebuilding of South Africa, particularly given the failure of the corporate entities being charged to participate in the Truth and Reconciliation process. Their responsibility of the defendants for their conduct during the apartheid era has never been fully accounted for, and their liability has never been discharged by any reconciliation process.
Yet, as our members experienced first-hand, certain multinational corporations actively collaborated with the apartheid government and aided and abetted its abhorrent crimes. The customised administrative and technological assistance provided by multinational enterprises facilitated the commission of the regime's crimes, which could not have occurred without the provision of data-collection and procession systems, crowd-control hardware and vehicles, which were designed and maintained to meet the regime's repressive needs.
Injured victims should be able to pursue redress for the complicity of such entities in the specific crimes listed in the amended complaints.
The histories of apartheid and SA labour relations are inextricably intertwined. The need for a cheap and pliant labour force led to many of the crimes which underlie this litigation. The laws and institutions of apartheid systematically removed all workplace and constitutional protection from the black labour force.
The pass laws deprived any pass-carrying person from being an ‘employee' and deprived them of any protections and labour rights. The Group Areas Act, the institution of the Bantustans and influx control rendered black South Africans as immigrants in their own country. This was slavery in all but name.
The Suppression of Communism Act and anti-terrorism laws permitted the regime's security forces to systematically target trade union and workplace leaders. Such activists at the forefront of the liberation struggle were among the most endangered members of the black population during apartheid.
Having been deprived of rights and/or labelled as communists or terrorist, black workers and their leaders were subjected to the full force of abuse by the security forces. Extrajudicial killings, unlawful detention, torture and other forms of cruel treatment were routinely used to suppress black workers opposed to apartheid.
But despite the regime's efforts, black workers and their unions were instrumental in ending apartheid. They have also been instrumental in rebuilding the country in collaboration with the government - as evidenced by the role played by COSATU members in post-apartheid governance, and with employers through collective bargaining.
We do not find any credible evidence that this litigation will harm investment in South Africa. During the apartheid years there was international consensus that the apartheid regime was a gross violator of international human rights, as shown in numerous UN statements and declarations condemning the regime.
Today, on the contrary, it is accepted that South Africa is a model post-conflict society and an example to Africa and the world. No legitimate company will be deterred from investing in the country today for fear of legal accountability for unlawful conduct.
Therefore the amicus is urging the court to give weight to the South African government's position, to uphold the District court's decision to permit this litigation to continue.