Alabama’s impeachment report airs out Governor Bentley moral turpitude!

“The Alabama Constitution of 1901 expressly provides five grounds for impeachment: willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, intemperance in the use of liquor or narcotics, and “any offense involving moral turpitude while in office, or committed under color thereof, or connected therewith.” It provides almost no guidance, however, and much less any mandates, as to how either house of the Legislature must conduct its respective part of the process” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 44, 2017). What is Moral Turpitude: “Moral turpitude is a legal concept that refers to any conduct that is believed to be contrary to the community standards of honesty, justice, or good moral values. While there is no one exact definition of acts that are considered under moral turpitude, they are typically described as any acts of vileness or depravity, or of sexual immorality, whether in a private or social context. One example of moral turpitude is murder. To explore this concept, consider the following moral turpitude definition” (Legal Dictionary – Moral Turpitude)

There are interesting times in Alabama, United States, a grand corruption case and impeachment of the Governor Robert J. Bentley, because of the Trump Administration and their scandal this has been silently going on. Even if it is interesting as the precedence for this trial is misuse of his office and of campaign funds. That the House of Representatives in the State was able in 2016 to put forward the case and file it. Proves that the other representatives in Alabama want the state to be just in front of their citizens, not just a place for the Governor Bentley to eat.

As Gawker itself noted in March 2015: “That the Bentleys are making sure they can the suppress details of their divorce is not a surprise—they had already been doing it for months. According to documents filed by Dianne Bentley, the two have been separated since January—things appear to have been so bad that the First Lady had to be convinced to attend Bentley’s inauguration on January 19—but as AL.com notes, the two have “gone to great lengths to hide [that] fact.” For instance, on July 24, more than seven months after their separation, both Robert and Dianne used their Twitter accounts to wish each other a happy anniversary, with Dianne writing, “God has blessed us w/ 50 years of marriage.” (Sargent, 2015).

That the two term elected Alabama Governor Bentley has misused his position, not only been unjust to his wife with the affair at the Alabama State House, he had also let his unelected adviser Rebekah Mason, who could use her close relationship to control the Governor. Therefore, she was de facto Governor, as she had to be in the room when decisions we’re made. This proves alone, not only the misuse of public funds and use of state budget on her place inside his campaign team and as consultant firm.

“Those in Montgomery who work with the governor said Mason, 43, is an integral part of his team and that her influence has continued to grow” (…) “You can’t get to the governor unless she clears it,” said one legislator, who asked that his name not be used. “Some people resent that.” (…) “Earlier this year, Mason was named one of “The 50 Most Powerful and Influential People in Alabama” by the conservative site Yellowhammer.com, who described her as “part of the very small circle of the governor’s closest advisors.” (…) “From crafting State of the State Addresses to coordinating external efforts to advance the governor’s agenda, Mason is involved in all of it. No one has the governor’s ear more than she does. No one,” the site noted” (Gore, 2015)

The consultant firms that Governor INC hired to work for him. The Alabama House Judiciary Committee’s report, even as the Governor has worked to deliver as little information as possible, there are clearly evidence of the misuse of the Executive power in the State. Not only falling in love with another woman, than the ones who the Governor was married to. Just take a look!

Entitlement:

“By insisting that Governor Bentley is entitled to due process under the federal Constitution, he implicitly asserts that he owns the Office of the Governor of the State of Alabama and that his suspension or removal from office is a deprivation of his property. This is wrong” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 14, 2017).

Impeachment:

“The very purpose of impeachment – to protect the public from an abusive official – would be undermined if the Executive were shielded from the full reach of the Committee’s investigative authority in this circumstance. Thus, the “alleged misconduct of a chief executive that is sufficient to warrant an impeachment inquiry should not, as the [Governor’s] contention suggests, present a reason for exempting him from accountability; rather it should have the opposite effect.” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 23, 2017).

Governor Bentley withheld documentation:

“Leaving aside for the moment the question of the applicability of that privilege as asserted by a Governor against a co-equal branch of government in an impeachment investigation, Governor Bentley certainly should have produced all non-privileged documents responsive to the Committee’s request. In most circumstances, it is the burden of the subpoenaed party to support specific claims of privilege by describing the nature of the documents withheld” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 30, 2017).

No disclosing his Cell-phones:

“Despite multiple witnesses stating that Governor Bentley has consistently used three cell phones, Governor Bentley provided no documents responsive to the Committee’s request for a list of his cell phones or mobile devices (Item 29). He objected that the request “seeks information outside of the possession, custody or control of the Office of the Governor.”109 The Committee sought, without success, to determine if Governor Bentley was drawing a distinction between an “Office of the Governor” cell or so-called “burner” phone and a “Robert J. Bentley” cell or burner phone. The Committee noted that the document labeled OTG009338 (Ex. 5-CC) is a cover page for a selection of text messages from a phone that is referred to as “Governor state phone.” At a minimum, Governor Bentley’s “state phone” was in the possession, custody or control of the Office of the Governor” (House Committee of Alabama, P. 32, 2017).

Witnesses and Governor refused to testify:

“On October 24, 2016, the Committee, through Special Counsel and pursuant to Amended Committee Rule 6, sent to the Office of the Governor notices for the transcribed testimony under oath of Governor Robert J. Bentley, Zach Lee, Wesley Helton and David Byrne. Despite follow-up requests, the noticed persons have declined to testify” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 34, 2017).

Secret relationship:

“A number of law enforcement personnel and other staff members we interviewed were suspicious that the confidentiality agreements were designed to conceal the Bentley-Mason relationship. On the other hand, Seth Hammett maintains that the agreements were not intended for that purpose and resulted entirely from his concern that the Office of the Governor did not adequately control who attended meetings, or the flow of information in those meetings. Hammett was concerned that this lack of information control could result in the leak of sensitive information from the Office. He claims the agreements were specifically designed to address that concern. Information security was a consistent theme of the changes Hammett made after he took over as chief of staff, and according to him, such concerns were his primary motivation for the structural changes he implemented in the Office” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 57, 2017).

Rebekah Mason’s employment:

“As noted above, Rebekah Mason joined Governor Bentley’s 2010 campaign and then transitioned into his Administration, first as Communications Director and later as Communications Advisor. Beginning February 2011, she was paid a salary of approximately $98,000 per year, which was reduced after March 2012 to approximately $48,000 per year” (…) “In July 2013, Mason left formal employment with the Office of the Governor to begin work on Governor Bentley’s re-election campaign, although she was at the Capitol in Governor Bentley’s office on a regular basis, having maintained a parking space and keycard access. While working on the campaign, Mason was paid through her company, RCM Communications, Inc., which was incorporated on July 19, 2013. A review of publicly-available campaign finance records reveal that RCM Communications received money from Bentley for Governor, Inc., and was not paid by any other political candidate in Alabama. Bentley for Governor, Inc.’s publicly-available filings reflect that RCM Communications was paid monthly for “Consultants/Polling” and received reimbursement for transportation, lodging, food, and administrative expenses. From July 31, 2013, through November 13, 2014, Bentley for Governor, Inc. paid RCM Communications $426,978.43, which included $184,515.00 for “Consultants/Polling” and $220,346.00 for “Advertising.” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 57-58).

Lewis on the Mason’s connection with the Governor:

“Lewis had never met the dermatologist from Tuscaloosa who was on the verge of becoming Governor that November, but he accepted an offer from the commander of the DPU to serve as Dr. Bentley’s protective detail leader should he be elected Governor. Lewis met Dr. Bentley and his family on Election Day and was immediately impressed. Lewis saw Dr. Bentley as a family man and recalled that “he just expected us to handle things above board, to be responsible in what we did. And, you know . . . he was a religious man. He was a Christian, and he had that reputation already so you knew that you had to toe the line when you were around him.” (Ex. 9-B)” (…) “After Robert Bentley was elected Governor, the relationship between the two men grew close. Lewis recalls: “[T]he governor was like a father figure to me when we first started. We’re very close. We would talk about anything.” (…) “As Governor Bentley’s affair with Mason evolved, Lewis noticed that Governor Bentley “started to change.” Lewis’s relationship with Governor Bentley soured, and Lewis ultimately came to distrust Governor Bentley. He noted: “I knew that if the governor would betray his own family, there’s nothing to stop him from coming at me.” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 62, 2017).

“Nonetheless, on multiple occasions, and with a frequency that increased as the relationship between Governor Bentley and Mason grew, Lewis found himself overruled by Governor Bentley. Lewis recalls one occasion when he instructed Governor Bentley’s Director of Scheduling Linda Adams, while planning for a trip, not to put Mason on the State plane. Later that day, Governor Bentley called Lewis and ordered him to put Mason on the flight. Lewis recalls telling Governor Bentley: “Sir, I disagree with that, but you’re the governor and I will respect your wishes.” Lewis believes this conversation was the beginning of the deterioration of his relationship with Governor Bentley” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 79, 2017).

Using the Wallace elevator:

“Mason also often came into Governor Bentley’s office without the staff’s knowledge. It is believed this occurred because she was allowed to maintain keycard access to the capitol even though she was no longer a State employee. It was also reported that she was able to arrive in Governor Bentley’s office through an unobserved elevator that moved directly between Governor Bentley’s personal office on the first floor of the capitol and the press office in the basement. (Ex. 5-I at 3-4). This elevator was put in by Governor George Wallace after he was shot and is referred to as the “Wallace Elevator.” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 67, 2017).

Control of 2015 budget:

“A stark example of Mason’s control was her role in State budget negotiations in 2015. Spencer Collier told us that in years past, the budget process was initiated by a meeting with State Finance Director Bill Newton and his staff. At the conclusion of that meeting, Collier would meet with Governor Bentley to discuss strategies for addressing any potential cuts. However, in 2015, ALEA was required to meet with Mason and Jennifer Ardis to set budget priorities” (House Committee of Alabama, P: 69, 2017).

The report show’s the connection between Rebekah Mason and Governor Robert Bentley is clear, where the involvement went passed the employee and employer. The details that comes through the report proves the close relationship and the Mrs. Bentley divorce as she understood, because the Governor wasn’t a James Bond. He couldn’t keep himself away from the consultant and the campaign contributor. That even she had to be on the State planes, even as she wasn’t anymore a state employee, the security detail had to accept it. So Lewis said many times it was a bad idea, still the Governor had to have her with him. Just as she had to give him advice on the State Budget. This here proves that an unelected lover can become important.

“The First Baptist Church of Tuscaloosa has expelled Republican Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and a female staff from its membership amid a raging controversy over an inappropriate audio recording that suggested the governor had an extramarital affair. Bentley was a deacon in the church” (…)”While church discipline is a church family matter, both Governor Robert Bentley and Mrs. Rebekah Mason are no longer members of First Baptist Church Tuscaloosa. I continue to pray for each of them,” Senior Pastor Gil McKee told Christian News Network on Friday” (Hicap, 2016).

So in last month the Church that both cheaters comes from have expelled them, the place they met before they went to Montgomery to become State Officials. Therefore, the Christian Family man because of love life and is extramarital affair, can not also lose all his credibility, but also expelled from his Christian fellowship. That shows the consequences of the Conservative Republican state that Governor Bentley has run.

Therefore, the State impeachment and the clear report proving the misconduct and misuse of power. As well as his unethical affair that also has implicated his office as the Executive, proves how Bentley got hooked on power and on the newfound love. So the former deacon is clearly not following his own teachings when it comes to an affair on the outside of his marriage, as he did what he could to have the consultant close and also keep the divorce silent too. Since he wanted his image to stay relevant. Certainly, the maladministration and the possible use of State property to usher in the relationship can be seen as “involving moral turpitude while in office” (Alabama Constitution 1901).

So that he misused the Alabama state to have an affair with Rebekah Mason, she was apparently married woman, so them both was having affairs for different reasons. The Governor Bentley is bad enough for selling his Christian Family Values, while being unfaithful and having an affair with a married woman, also misusing his position as Executive to get her on trips and get her hired through straw-companies, as campaign consultant, instead of directly in the State House. That shows the level of extent and that the Governor hired and sacked people to keep it secret as well. Even if he bad at keeping it low-key… Peace.

Reference:

Legal Dictionary – ‘Moral Turpitude’ link: https://legaldictionary.net/moral-turpitude/

Gore, Leade – ‘Who is Rebekah Caldwell Mason? Gov. Bentley’s advisor paid $426,978 in 2014 election’ (03.09.2015) link: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/who_is_rebekah_caldwell_mason.html

Hicap, Jonah – ‘Baptist Church expels Alabama governor, female staff over admitted explicit calls’ (29.03.2016) link: https://www.christiantoday.com/article/baptist.church.expels.alabama.governor.female.staff.over.admitted.explicit.calls/82816.htm

Representatives House of Alabama – ‘ THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNOR ROBERT BENTLEY PRE-HEARING SUBMISSION OF SPECIAL COUNSEL’ (07.04.2017)

Sargent, Jordan – ‘Alabama Governor Robert Bentley Won’t Say Whether He Fucked a Staffer’ (09.03.2015) link: http://gawker.com/alabama-governor-robert-bentley-wont-say-whether-he-fuc-1728112971

A look into how the American and British Companies defied the embargo and UN sanctions against the South African Apartheid Government in the 1970s and 1980s

This here will be about how American and British interest we’re in the draconian Apartheid regime in South Africa in 1970s and 1980s. I been looking into how businesses at the time went through hoops and not caring about the United Nations Sanctions and resolution 418 of 4^th November 1977 states this:

“Determines, having regard to the policies and acts of the South African Government, that the acquisition by South Africa of arms and related material constitutes, a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security; Decides that all States shall cease forthwith  any provisions to South Africa of arms and related materiel of all types, including the sale of transfer of weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, para military police equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and shall cease as well the provision of all types of equipment and supplies and grants of licensing arrangements for the manufacture of the aforementioned” (UN, 1977).

So with that in mind, we can see how businesses of United States and Britain started and worked as subsidiaries in South Africa during the Apartheid, where the instances of FORD Motors and Leyland Vehicles we’re produced and used by the Police under the worst atrocities of a regime who used their laws, security agencies to harass the majority; while keeping the minority rulers and their economic incentive intact by any means. So that big business and other ones defied the Sanctions and even collaborated with necessary arms, cars and other procurement for the totalitarian state; shows how far the Corporation goes for profit and serve even governments who has no quarrel with prosecuting innocent citizens. Therefore the history of these corporations and their dealings should come to light and be questioned. As business today does the same under regimes that are totalitarian and militaristic with the favor of elite and harassing the opposition. That is why we can see at the tactics of the 1970s and 1980s and see how they might be used today.

So with that introduction take a look at my findings and hope you find it interesting.

How to start the discussion:

“Johannesburg Star (South African daily), Nov. 26, 1977, at 15. See also 1978 Hearings, supra note 13, at 846 (statement of John Gaetsewe, General Secretary of the banned South African Congress of Trade Unions) (“The ending of foreign investment in South Africa … is a means of undermining the power of the apartheid regime. Foreign investment is a pillar of the whole system which maintains the virtual slavery of the Black workers in South Africa.”); Christian Sci. Monitor, Feb. 21, 1984, at 25 (statement by Winnie Mandela, wife of imprisoned African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela)” (Hopkins, 1985).

Some money earned by the SADF at the time:

“According to official SADF accounts, the money that would have been recouped from the sale of ivory would flow back into funding the Unita rebels. However, Breytenbach knew that in the year 1986/1987 alone, the SADF’s assistance to Unita through military intelligence totalled R400 million (ZAR2005=R2,5 billion) and this excluded the supply of almost all Unita’s hardware and fuel. It is therefore unlikely that this was the reason behind the SADF’s interest in ivory smuggling. It is more likely that the potential for self-enrichment that this presented to SADF officers was enormous. General Chris Thirion, Former Deputy Chief of Staff Intelligence, agrees and suspects that Savimbi was in fact over-funded at the time” (Van Vuren, 2006).

How much RSA used on Military Equipment during Apartheid in the 1980s:

“According to evidence presented to the UN Security Council arms embargo committee in 1984, out of its annual total arms procurement budget of some R1.62 billion over R900 million was to be spent on arms purchases from overseas” (…)”This R900 million is spent on the procurement of arms directly by the regime from overseas and via the private sector. No official figures are published about how much is actually spent on direct imports of armaments. However, it can be estimated from figures contained in an in-depth survey by the Johannesburg Sunday Times in July 1982 that imports from overseas were 15 per cent of defence spending which then stood at R3,320 million per annum” (AAM, 1985).

How that happen:

“Those breaches of the arms embargo which have been exposed have also revealed the myth of South Africa’s self-sufficiency. Equipment smuggled into South Africa include weapons such as machine guns, rifles and pistols as well as spares and components for them. In a trial at the Old Bailey, London, in October 1982, the Court was informed that South African efforts to produce components for pre-war machine guns had not been successful. This points to the serious deficiencies in the quality and reliability of even minor items manufactured in South Africa” (AAM, 1985).

Export of R.J. Electronics International:

“Britain’s refusal to strictly implement the UN arms embargo and its continuing military collaboration in various fields are not totally surprising since much of this arises out of its traditional relationship with South Africa” (…)”They failed to re-appear in Court on 22 October 1984 and the following weekend gave a press conference. At it, Colonel Botha disclosed that they had operated as undercover agents for five years and “had saved the country at least R5 million on purchases of vital equipment”. Metelerkamp claimed he was only a consultant to Kentron and was the Managing Director of R J Electronics International. However, it emerged that he had been employed by Kentron up to a month prior to his arrest, and R J Electronics International was “a company used to purchase illicit arms” (AAM, 1985).

Other Examples:

“One cargo of FN rifles was initially exported by air to Red Baron Ltd at an address in Zurich before being forwarded to South Africa. This company, however, was not Swiss, but registered in England. Its directors were Mr Trinkler and two others who had also been directors of Kuehne and Nagel in Britain” (…)”The most controversial case was that of the British Aerospace naval reconaissance aircraft, the Coastguarder. In Hay 1984 it was disclosed that British Aerospace had been approached by the South African Government and that initial discussions had taken place concerning the purchase of eight aircraft. These were to replace the Shackleton aircraft which were having to be phased out. The South African authorities had sought to evade the arms embargo by forming a Coastguard service as a civilian authority through which the order for the aircraft would be placed. Repeated efforts to secure from the Government an undertaking that the Coastguarder would not be granted licence for export to South Africa met with the response that “it would not be proper for me to offer a definitive view now on the hypothetical question on the issue of a licence for the export of an aircraft such as the Coastguarder to South Africa” (AAM, 1985).

Shell Corporation working with the Regime:

“The South Africans agreed and supplied a cash advance that allowed the traders to purchase a tanker, shipping company and the required insurance. The tanker docked in Kuwait and filled its tanks with oil owned by Shell. The oil was registered for delivery in France. However, en route to Europe from the Gulf the tanker stopped in Durban and off-loaded almost all of its oil crude oil—almost 180,000 tonnes—with the South Africans paying the difference between the purchase price and the fees it had advanced for the purchase of the tanker. The Salem was then filled up with water in order to create the impression that it was still laden with oil. Off the coast of West Africa (Senegal), at one of the deepest points of the Atlantic, the ship was scuttled and the crew, who were prepared for the evacuation, were conveniently ‘rescued’. They had hoped to make an extra $24 million off the insurance claim for the lost oil. Following investigations by the insurance company the main perpetrators were prosecuted. The biggest loser next to Shell was South Africa, asit agreed to pay the Dutch multinational US$30 million (ZAR2005=R436 million) in an out-of-court settlement. Shell was left to carry a remaining loss of US$20 million. The use of corrupt middlemen had cost South Africa almost half a billion rand. There was no prosecution in South Africa of the officials at the SFF who had authorised South Africa’s procurement of a full tanker of oil from three novice (criminal) entrepreneurs” (Van Vuren, 2006).

British Subsidiaries in South Africa:

“Many of these subsidiaries are British. They include Leyland (Landrovers and Trucks); ICI (through its 40 per cent holding in AECI) (Ammunition and Explosives); Trafalgar House (through Cementation Engineering) (artillery shells); ICL (Computers); GEC including Marconis (Military Communications Equipment); Lontho (aircraft franchises); Plessey (Military Communications Equipment); BP and Shell (oil and other petroleum products for the military and police)” (…)”An impression of the full extent of the role of British subsidiaries in South Africa in undermining the arms embargo can be obtained from studying Appendix C. This is a list of British companies with subsidiaries in South Africa which are also known to be engaged in the manufacture of military and related equipment” (AAM, 1985).

British Mercenaries:

“British mercenaries, some recruited. originally for the forces of the illegal Smith regime, are serving in a number of South African Defence Force units, including the infamous “32 Battallion” operating out of Namibia into Angola. A British mercenary was killed in the South African commando raid on the residence of South African refugees in Maputo, Mozambique, in January 1981” (AAM, 1985).

“British Government policy so far has been to grant permission for Officers to serve in the South African Defence Forces.” (…)”This was explained by Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Heseltine, in a letter to the Rt Hon Denis Healey:

“An Officer is required to resign his commission before joining the forces of a country that does not owe allegiance to the Crown, and if he did not do so then the commission would be removed. As you will appreciate, this is the only power that we can exercise over an officer who has already retired from the Services. Guidance is given to officers about these procedures before they retire, but no specific recommendations are made about which countries’ Armed Forces an officer should join; nor do I believe that it would be right to do so.” (AAM, 1985).

American Businesses under Apartheid:

“Approximately 350 of the most prominent companies in the United States, including more than half of the Fortune 500’s top one hundred firms, operate subsidiaries in South Africa [18]. Another 6000 do business there through sales agents and distributers [19]. The United States holds fifty-seven percent of all foreign holdings on the Johannesburg stock exchange, including gold mines, mining houses, platinum mines, and diamonds [20]. The State Department estimated that U.S. direct investment amounted to $2.3 billion in 1983, down from the $2.8 billion calculated by the South African Institute of Race Relations for 1982 [21]. Other estimates put overall American investment, including loans and gold stocks, at $14 billion [22]” (…)”rcent [25]. U.S. exports to South Africa, however, grew from approximately R1.2 billion in 1979 to R2.7 billion in 1981 [26]. As a result, the United States emerged as the Republic’s largest trading partner [27]. Apart from its quantitative impact, U.S. business investment has a qualitative impact disproportionate to its financial value” (…)”John Purcell of Goodyear concurred, asserting that economic pressures will not encourage nonviolent social change in South Africa; rather, this will be brought about by “economic growth, expanded contact with the outside, and time” ((Hopkins, 1985)

Ford sold cars to the Apartheid regime:

“Ford Directed and Controlled its South African Policies from the United States, Exported Equipment from the United States, and Acted to Circumvent the United States Sanctions Regime: (New York Southern Cout Case, P: 65, 2014)

“Thus, despite the tightening of U.S. trade sanctions in February 1978, Ford U.S. still announced a “large infusion[] of capital into its South African subsidiary. Ford injected $8 million for upkeep and retooling” (New York Southern Court Case, P: 67, 2014).

“Ford support was significant: “[B]etween 1973 and 1977 [Ford] sold 128 cars and 683 trucks directly to the South African Ministry of Defense and 646 cars and 1,473 trucks to the South African police. Ford sold at least 1,582 F series U.S.-origin trucks to the police” (…)”Despite the prohibitions, Ford continued to supply vehicles to the South African security forces with the purpose of facilitating apartheid crimes. Ford denied that its continued sales to the South African security forces ran counter to the U.S. prohibitions, on the basis that the vehicles did not contain parts or technical data of U.S. origin” (…)”Notably, into the 1980s, Ford sold vehicles that did not need to be “converted” by the apartheid government for military or police use but were already specialized before leaving the plant in South Africa” (…)”Ford built a limited number of XR6 model Cortinas known as “interceptors” that were sold almost exclusively to the police. The XR6 was special because it had three Weber model double carburetors, as opposed to all other Cortinas that had only one double carburetor” (…)”Ford knew that the normal market for these vehicles was the security forces. The vehicles were deliberately pre-equipped with armor and military fixtures and designed for easy modification by the security forces to add additional defensive and offensive features” (…)”By making profits which they knew could only come from their encouragement of the security forces’ illicit operations through the sale of vehicles, parts, designs, and services, Ford acquired a stake in the criminal enterprise that was the apartheid regime” (New York Southern Case, P: 71-77, 2014).

Leyland under Apartheid:

“The British government now virtually owns British Leyland and therefore controls the company’s operations in South Africa. Yet it has done little in practice to press for the rights of black workers to organize through trade unions, or for the recognition of the unions for collective bargaining purposes” (…)”The South African “branch” is Leyland’s biggest operation in the world outside of the U.K. At present it is the 8^th largest car manufacturer (holding approximately 5% of the market) and the 7^th largest commercial vehicle manufacturer (holding approximately 5,5% of the market) in South Africa. Despite the depressed condition of the South African Market it sold 1959 vehicles in January-February of 1977 alone” (…)”B.L.S.A. has massive contracts with the South African state. It is one of the chief suppliers of the South African Defense Force, providing not only trucks and landrovers (which form the backbone of anti-guerrilla operations) but also armored personnel carriers. Of course, the figures for these contracts are never made public” (…)”For example, in June 1976 it was announced that B.L.S.A. had won a £1.9millon order for 250 trucks from the Cape Provincial Authority” (…)”As Leyland itself have argued , It “must conform, it not entirely” to South African government and established wishes” (Coventry Anti-Apartheid, 1977).

This here is not easy to finish up as the implications of this deals and arrangement used to support a government that oppressed and detained the majority. This Apartheid government did it all openly and with a clear message that the white minority should rule, while the rest should serve them.

In that context these businesses earned good amount of cash and profits for their stakeholders and their shareholders. While their products and procured services by the state we’re used to oppress majority of people in South Africa. We can surely see the amount of money and how this have affected the society and given way for the government of the time to continue with the process of detaining and harassing the majority of South Africans. This could not have happen if there wasn’t a helping hand from businesses and their subsidiaries. This here is just a brief look into it.

Certainly this should be studied even more and become clear evidence of how heartbreaking it is to know how certain businesses and people owning them will profit on suffering of fellow human beings. That is why I myself shed a light on it, to show the extent of disobedience of the UN Resolution and also what these corporations does in regimes that harassing and oppressing fellow citizens for their background, creed, tribe etc. It’s just ghastly and makes my tummy vomit. But that is just me, hope you got some indication of how they did their business and served the Apartheid government. Peace.

Reference:

Anti-Apartheid Movement – ‘How Britian Arms Apartheid – A memorandum for presentation to her Majesty’s Government’ (1985)

Coventry Anti-Apartheid Movement – ‘Leyland in Britain and in South Africa’ (1977)

Hopkins, Sheila M. – ‘AN ANALYSIS OF U.S.-SOUTH AFRICAN RELATIONS IN THE 1980s: HAS ENGAGEMENT BEEN CONSTRUCTIVE?’ (1985) – Journal of Comparative Business and Capital Market Law 7 (1985) 89-115, North Holland

United States, New York Southern Court: Case 1:02-md-01499-SAS Document 280-1 Filed 08/08/14

Van Vuren, Hennie – ‘Apartheid grand corruption – Assessing the scale of crimes of profit from 1976 to 1994’ (2006)