The Great Debate UK
Wiwa v Shell: The day of reckoning
-Ben Amunwa is a campaigner with oil industry watchdog Platform, where he runs Remember Saro-Wiwa, a project that uses art and activism to raise awareness about the impact of the oil in the Niger Delta. The opinions expressed are his own.-
When the news broke of a settlement in the Wiwa v Shell case, a cacophony of responses soon flooded my inbox. Hailed as a victory for human rights by some, others felt disappointed that Shell could throw money in the face of justice. In such a high profile and emotive legal battle, holding oil giant Shell responsible for human rights abuses in Nigeria, including the execution of charismatic activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, hopes were inevitably high.
A settlement was always going to stir some controversy. Activists wanted to see Shell on trial for aiding and abetting the Nigerian military in crackdowns on the Ogoni people in the 1990s. Myself and many others travelled to New York expecting a trial, but came home empty-handed. Yet none of us had spent hours locked in settlement negotiations, nor lived with the burden of a 12-year litigation, not to mention the personal trauma of losing our loved ones to brutal violence. There is a growing consensus that the settlement is a victory in favor of the plaintiffs, and a step forward on the long road to corporate accountability.
Eager to flex its public-relations muscles, Shell claimed they agreed to a settlement for “compassionate” reasons. A statement on Tuesday said:
“Shell today agreed to settle a court case in New York related to allegations in connection with the Nigerian military government’s execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and others in 1995, making a humanitarian gesture to set up a trust fund to benefit the Ogoni people…Shell has always maintained the allegations were false… we were prepared to go to court to clear our name.”
In spite of Shell’s official denials, all the signs point towards complicity. No multinational company settles out of court for $15.5 million due to “humanitarian” or “compassionate” impulses. According to attorneys, this payout is far higher than similar cases.
The real reason why Shell settled is because the evidence compiled by the plaintiffs, was damning enough to force an out of court settlement. Far from being willing to defend itself before a jury, Shell has spent the last 12 years fighting to stay out of the courtroom, and to keep the evidence out of the public eye. If Shell was innocent of any wrongdoing, why didn’t they tough it out in court?
Political motives behind the trial of Suu Kyi
- Soe Paing is Director of the Office of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, based in the U.S. The opinions expressed are his own. -
The arrest and the filing of criminal charges against Aung San Suu Kyi for alleged violation of house arrest rules under Section 22 of the 1975 State Protection Law or “Law to Safeguard the State Against the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts” indicate that the incumbent military regime in Burma is not interested in the offer of Aung San Suu Kyi’s party — National League for Democracy (NLD) — to join the elections scheduled for 2010 if certain conditions are met.
The NLD recently issued, what is known as the “Shwegondaing Declaration”, in which it was suggested that the Burmese generals (1) release all political prisoners, (2) review the constitution, and (3) establish a “genuine” (federal) union based on the principle of equality for all the ethnic nationalities… and the party would join the elections scheduled in 2010.
NLD Central Executive Committee Member U Win Tin said the action taken against Suu Kyi suggested that “the political future of the country is very bleak”.
In fact, the move by the Burmese generals is even worse than what U Win Tin would openly say. It means the generals are determined to go all out to marginalize the NLD so that the party will never become a real contender in national politics again. The generals have learned from the 1990 elections that even a hastily organized group of democrats like the NLD can overwhelmingly beat a strong, well-organized party backed by the military if the people are given the freedom of choice.
The generals do not want any intervention in their attempt to legitimize military rule through a constitution which was unilaterally drafted by the military through a carefully orchestrated national process.
The arrest and trial of Suu Kyi must be seen in that political context to understand why the generals are using the intrusion into the home of Suu Kyi by an uninvited American citizen, John Yettaw, as an excuse to charge her. It was a golden opportunity for the junta since her house arrest — termed as “unlawful” because it “not only violates international law but also national domestic laws” by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions — was about to expire on May 27.
OK, but what was the American citizen doing there? Is he a spy? If he was not invited, how come he stayed two days? It seems to me that there is more than meets the eye in this episode…
The military needed and excuse and somebody provided the excuse. Why?
Samantha Orobator: On trial in Laos
– Clive Stafford Smith is the director of Reprieve, the UK legal action charity that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners. The opinions expressed are his own. -
Samantha Orobator, a 20 year old British woman, is languishing in the Phonthong Prison in Laos, on a capital charge of carrying a pound and a half of drugs in her luggage. Under the languid Laotian legal system, she would normally have waited two years or more for a trial. However, the Laotians accelerated the schedule, announcing late on Thursday that the trial would be held this Monday. They omitted a few of the niceties: She faced the firing squad without a lawyer.
Anna Morris, our Reprieve barrister from London, was scheduled to meet with her on Tuesday, which may have contributed to the chosen trial date. Criticizing the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party is a criminal offense. Perhaps calling for a fair trial is considered too close to the line; the government reneged on its promise, made before Anna flew 9,344 kilometres (5,806 miles) from London to Laos, to allow three days of legal visits.
Controversy envelopes Samantha. She has been in prison since August 6, 2008, and yet she is due to give birth on September 6, 2009. Khenthong Nuanthasing, the Lao government spokesman, spoke to the BBC Tuesday morning. When asked whether Samantha became pregnant in the prison, he replied: “That’s impossible. A man or guard cannot act in that way *** she was pregnant when she was arrested in August.”
One might be sceptical at this. It would mean her gestation period was at least 13 months which, while plausible were she a blue whale, is not what we expect of human beings. Later Mr Nuanthasing changed his version of events, indicating that she might have been pregnant when she was arrested, but that she lost the first baby while in prison.
How she became pregnant is one pressing issue, but perhaps of most immediate concern is her health and the health of her unborn child. If she has already had one miscarriage in the prison, then Samantha must add it to one she suffered in 2006, when she was beaten by her boyfriend with a bicycle chain.
The Laotians announced Tuesday that they would not execute a pregnant woman, but they planned to plough forward with her trial within the next week, when she faces life in prison. Her prospects are dim. The U.S. State Department, in its 2008 report on Laos, notes that all judges have to be party members, and that a trial such as Samantha’s will be a foregone conclusion, stating quaintly that “judges usually decided guilt or innocence in advance…”
Who wants to help Shell get a clue via JustMeans? http://tinyurl.com/m9jw6a