PRESIDENT Cyril Ramaphosa has poured cold water in the recent high court ruling that he had a case to answer on his role leading to the Marikana massacre.
He said an impression had been created that he was liable for the deaths when, in fact, he wasn’t.
The Presidency, in a statement responding to the South Gauteng High Court findings that Ramaphosa could be held liable, said despite these reports, the court did not make such a finding.
“The court made no finding that the president was the cause of the harmful conduct. Proceedings were not a trial, and no evidence was led. The court was merely engaged in a legal debate regarding whether the plaintiffs’ allegations complied with the law,” it argued.
The Presidency said the court rejected mineworkers’ argument that Ramaphosa’s email communication, in which he described the union actions during the protest as criminal and called concomitant action, was a call for the murder of workers.
“The judgment stated that the plaintiff’s argument against the president ‘is not only far-fetched, but also irreconcilable within the context of the email communication contents’,” it said. The email, in which Ramaphosa called for concomitant action, caused an uproar during the Farlam Commission. But the commission did not make any adverse findings against Ramaphosa, who was a non-executive director of Lonmin mine. Forty-four people were killed on that fateful day.
Injured workers and families of those killed had taken the matter to court to hold Ramaphosa and Sibanye-Stillwater accountable.
The court ruled that Ramaphosa had a case to answer for his role in the events leading to the massacre, but reportedly did not find him responsible for the actions that led to the killing of miners.
The Presidency said Ramaphosa was vindicated by the judgment, as it agreed with him that there was no factual basis pleaded for allegations that he colluded with government and senior police officers. “On allegations that Ramaphosa owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs due to his role as director, the court agreed with him that the allegation was incorrect.
“It said ‘… the allegations pleaded do not show that the first defendant owed plaintiffs legal duties, and he therefore cannot in law incur liability in delict as director, or in pursuit of his personal interests and those of Lonmin’.”
