SCOTUS Sides with US Terror Victims, as State Department Seeks to Betray Them
Courts say Sudan must fully compensate victims after DoS cut secret deal to let Sudan pay only 1% of judgment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Eric Sapp
May 18, 2020 esapp@eleisongroup.com / 703-863-6403
WASHINGTON DC--In a unanimous ruling today, the US Supreme Court handed a huge win to victims of the 1998 US embassy bombings, ruling that Sudan owes victims both compensatory and punitive damages. In so doing, the Supreme Court noted that “the plaintiffs proved Sudan’s role in the attacks and established their entitlement to compensatory and punitive damages.” The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion rejecting punitive damages for the US Government employees, thereby reinstating Judge Bates’ ruling awarding punitive damages to 154 US Government employees whose deaths and injuries were caused by the Government of Sudan.
The SCOTUS ruling comes less than a month after the US Department of State (DoS) briefed Congress on a plan it had worked out with Sudan that would force victims to settle this case for only a penny on the dollar, completely disregarding arguments by the US Solicitor General to the Supreme Court in support of US victims.
“The Supreme Court has reaffirmed Sudan’s guilt and the basic American principle that the value of a life is not dependent on where a person is born,” says Doreen Oport, who worked for the US embassy and was badly injured in the attack. “In contrast, the State Department is betraying US victims and the American principles of equality and rule of law that the Sudan-back terrorists found so threatening 20 years ago.”
In an effort to speed Sudan’s removal from the State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST) List, DoS negotiators have proposed a bizarre plan--over victims’ objections and in violation of US law--where it would forcibly settle all cases against Sudan. Rather than basing settlement amounts on severity of injuries (as SCOTUS did in affirming lower court ruling), DoS’s proposal allows Sudan to base payment amount on nation of birth.
Most remarkably given SCOTUS’s ruling today, DoS’s proposal allows Sudan to pay white Americans 25 times more of their judgment than African Americans, and pay nothing to one-third of foreign national victims.
Because many embassy bombing judgment holders are naturalized citizens, African American citizens are awarded only 1/25th as much of their judgment as the white judgment holders under this Sudan/DoS scheme. This despite US Courts awarding African American victims judgments that were 30% higher due to their worse injuries.
Furthermore, this deal flies in the face of oral arguments made by the US Solicitor General, who told SCOTUS that US national security and foreign policy would be threatened if Sudan was allowed to avoid fully-compensating all victims. The deal also violates numerous international and US laws against discrimination, including the African Charter. Ironically, Sudan’s new government appears intent on trying to to be accepted as a democracy by violating the African Charter and denying equal treatment and justice to citizens of its neighboring states.
“We wish for peace and democracy in Sudan, and we were hopeful when the new power-sharing government took over,” said Oport. “But the new government of Sudan’s effort to ignore court orders and make access to justice dependent on where a person was born demonstrates that many of the former regime’s values remain in this new military/civilian government. Our hope is that more senior and honorable leaders in the US will intervene and ensure State Department negotiators are following our laws and core values.
DoS is claiming the authority to act unilaterally to force settlements without Congressional action, but members of Congress have already raised objections to the deal and can block Sudan’s removal from the SST. Victims have continued to offer to negotiate a fair settlement with Sudan that would allow it to guarantee payments against wealthy mineral and oil concessions it will receive after removal from the SST or allow the banks and companies that supported its terrorist actions to join in paying.
More information on the Opati vs Sudan SCOTUS decision and details on the State Department/Sudan settlement scheme, visit: https://www.sudanterrorvictims.org/
Embassy bombing victims are available for interviews and the victims’ lawyers can provide further details on the implications of this SCOTUS ruling and the forced settlement plan DoS briefed them and Congress on.
####
1998 US Embassy Bombing Victims Optimistic For Justice
Victims speak out after U.S. Supreme Court Hearing vs. Sudan
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Eric Sapp
February 24, 2020 esapp@eleisongroup.com / 703-863-6403
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania spoke following the conclusion of oral arguments in their U.S. Supreme Court case against Sudan. U.S. Courts have already ruled that Sudan played a “critical” role in the attacks and have ordered Sudan to pay $5.9 billion in compensatory damages. The Supreme Court will now decide if Sudan will also be required to pay punitive damages. The U.S. Solicitor General joined victims in Court today, arguing that Sudan’s payment of punitive damages was vital to deter future terrorist attacks.
“We are heartened and optimistic by what we witnessed during oral arguments today,” said Doreen Oport, who worked at the embassy in Kenya and was injured in that attack. “The strong support we have received from Congress and the Trump administration give us hope that, with this final legal battle behind us, Sudan will finally realize that the only path forward is to negotiate directly with its victims for just and fair resolution of our judgments.”
Sudan’s new power-sharing government — which includes the same military responsible for the 1998 attacks and leaders who have embezzled billions of dollars from Sudan’s treasury — is pushing to get itself removed from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list. But Sudan has continued to refuse to acknowledge the validity of U.S. Court judgments or enter into negotiations with its victims to settle their claims, leaving victims and their families still waiting for justice after over 20 years.
“If the new government in Sudan is truly ready to give up on its terrorist past as we hope, it must stop refusing to comply with U.S Court judgments and work directly with victims to resolve our claims and provide closure,” said Tobias Otieno, who was blinded and crippled in the attack, but still returned to service at the embassy in Kenya following 11 months in German and U.S. hospitals recovering from injuries he sustained from the blast.
Congress and the Administration have stated that Sudan must satisfy the embassy bombing victims’ court-ordered judgments before Sudan can be delisted as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
Victims have proposed a deal allowing Sudan to extend payment of court-ordered judgment over a number of years. This will allow Sudan to satisfy victims’ claims using guarantees on Sudan’s lucrative oil and mineral concessions that will follow removal from the SST, repatriation of stolen money by its leaders, and contributions from banks and companies that assisted Sudan in its terrorist activities in exchange for settling their own liability.
Press conference photos and Doreen Oport’s statement can be found at: www.sudanterrorvictims.org/press
Facts and a timeline for the case can be found at: www.sudanterrorvictims.org/answers-to-key-questions
For further details on the press conference or to schedule an interview with victims, please contact: Eric Sapp: esapp@eleisongroup.com, 703-863-6403
###