Reason:
Under its former name of Daimler Benz AG between 1948 and 1994, Daimler AG was economically deeply involved in the former apartheid South Africa and thus also profited to a high degree from the repression of the black and colored majority of the population.
A lawsuit is currently running in the United States against six companies, including Daimler AG. In the so-called Khulumani class action, 58,000 victims of the apartheid regime and their families are claiming compensation also from Daimler on the grounds of aiding and abetting serious violations of human rights during the apartheid era in South Africa.
After the claims were first made in 2002 and dismissed, a federal court of appeal found in favor of the South African plaintiffs and allowed the claims to go forward. The action was returned to the initial court in New York. In a ruling of April 8, 2009, Judge Shira Scheindlin admitted the claims on the basis of the Alien Tort Claims Act. The claims are now pending against Ford, IBM, Daimler, GM and Rheinmetall.
Like the other defendants, Daimler AG is accused of aiding and abetting serious violations of human rights by the apartheid regime through its South African companies. The accusations made against Daimler include aiding and abetting by collaborating with the security services and by supplying the security services with trucks and truck components. Also the supply of military Unimogs and multi-sensor platforms for the surveillance of black people in the homelands are deemed to be aiding and abetting violations of human rights.
The accused – Ford, IBM und Daimler – have appealed against the admission of the lawsuit and have proposed that the claims be dismissed.
Instead of seeking out-of-court solutions with the victims’ associations in South Africa – naturally only in connection with a legally effective and irrevocable waiver of legal action by the associations – Daimler is participating in an image-damaging mammoth legal dispute. But now it would be possible to combine Daimler’s current good social activities in South Africa in coming to terms with the apartheid era and supporting projects for young South Africans to overcome racial separation and racism with recognition of blame, a comprehensive apology, and compensation for the apartheid victims.
Instead of this, contrary to all historical evidence, Daimler’s involvement in the apartheid system is being denied by means of legalistic banter. At the same time, the use of Mercedes vehicles for example in violent raids of the hometowns by the apartheid police has been clearly documented all the way to the UNO. The Board of Management must terminate this dishonorable judicial spectacle as soon as possible and enter into serious negotiations with the victims’ associations in South Africa.
The actions of the Board of Management cannot be ratified also for another reason: In spite of being asked at the Annual Meeting in 2006 about the high provisions in the year 2005, it failed to give any specific answers with the justification of general risks in the US automobile market. After the publication of the current corruption accusation against Daimler by the US Department of Justice, it is clear that a substantial fine for bribery in at least 22 countries was already anticipated in 2005, although apparently the Board of Management was unwilling to put a stop internally to the obviously systematically corrupt sales model. The cases of bribery are supposed to have continued until 2008. What kind of disastrous compliance concept does our company have or did they just not want to discontinue this system?? It cannot be true that the shareholders should now offset this nine-digit figure without the responsible persons being held liable!