The United States Court of Appeals ruled, on August 18, 2015, that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cannot force public companies to declare whether their products may contain “conflict minerals” from the war-torn Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) because it violates their right to free speech.
Corporations in the US have been hiding behind the First Amendment to avoid accountability for their actions in restive nations in Africa, where it is believed rebels and other armed groups are primarily funded with the sale of minerals. From this funding, the rebels commit all sorts of heinous crimes against local residents.
The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the corporations, arguing that corporations have a constitutional right to conceal information about whether minerals in their supply chains may have funded conflict.
Human rights groups, who have been fighting for years for proper accountability from public corporations using minerals from conflict zones in Africa, described the ruling as, “a warped interpretation of the First Amendment.” They also said the ruling, “sets a dangerous precedent” on corporate ‘personhood.’
Other observers have also said that the court ruling shows that corporations’ rights to secrecy are more important than the public’s right to know. Ultimately, this ruling will only help these corporations continue their secret trade without accountability.
“Rulings such as this one send the message that so-called corporate ‘rights’ actually trump we the People’s’ rights. In this case a corporation is hiding behind the First Amendment to avoid accountability for their actions, and the court has ruled their right to secrecy is more important than the public’s right to know,” national director for Move to Amend, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, was quoted as saying by the Common Dreams.
The SEC’s conflict minerals rule, which is strongly backed by human rights groups, is a provision mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law—requiring manufacturers to conduct due diligence on their supply chains to try and track the origins of minerals including tantalum, tin, gold, and tungsten to determine if they may have come from the DRC or other conflict zones in Africa where minerals are mined.
A senior legal advisor at Global Witness, Zorka Milin, also agreed that the ruling has just opened new waterways for legal challenges in the future. She was quoted by the Reuters News Agency as saying, “Today’s decision affects not only the conflict minerals rule but could also be exploited by companies to bring legal challenges to other corporate transparency laws.”
In a joint press statement released early this year, Global Witness and Amnesty International explained their support for new laws that will force any corporation dealing with minerals from conflict zones to be fully scrutinized.
“These minerals are essential for electronic devices, such as smartphones and laptops. For over fifteen years armed groups in eastern Congo have preyed on the mining sector to finance their operations with devastating impact, committing gross human rights abuses in the process.”
Their joint release also revealed that 79 of the 100 companies analyzed failed to meet the minimum requirements of the US conflict minerals law, a disturbing finding that has arose much concern.
“The convoluted logic of the decision is a perversion of the First Amendment and intrudes on the mandate of a democratically-elected Congress. Given the potential implications of the ruling, in particular, the warped interpretation of the First Amendment, we urge the court to reconsider and overrule this decision,” Zorka Milin emotionally appealed to the court’s decision.
You want to support Anonymous Independent & Investigative News? Please, follow us on Twitter: Follow @AnonymousNewsHQ
This Article (US Lets Corporations Off The Hook Again In New ‘Conflict Mineral’ Ruling By The Court Of Appeals) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com.
