Update on the Chiquita Brands court ruling
Tertulia, vol. 61
Hola. This is Barbara, your guide to the latest cultural news from the Spanish-speaking world. Today, I have an update for you on my last post. Last week, I reported on a significant court ruling involving Chiquita Brands. Specifically, Chiquita Brands was ordered to compensate victims and their families for payments made to a paramilitary organisation in Colombia.
Over the weekend, the Colombian magazine La Vorágine revealed that two prominent Colombian intellectuals were involved in writing a study for the defence of the case. Namely, these individuals are economist Jorge Restrepo and anti-corruption investigator Yohir Akerman.
According to their study, at the time of the payments, Chiquita was unaware that the money was being directed to an organisation controlled by the paramilitary group in question. However, Colombian press reports cited by La Vorágine from the time in question contradict this claim.
This revelation raises serious allegations that should be clarified. If confirmed, Restrepo and Akerman would face accusations of either inadequate research methods or taking a specific stance for purely political reasons, potentially concealing known facts. Politically, both are generally associated with Colombia's conservative, pro-market environment. As one might expect, the publication of their study has caused uproar and condemnation on social media, particularly in left-wing circles.
It is challenging to assess the revelations without knowing how the study was carried out. The findings might indicate careless research. On the other hand, a purely political, libertarian agenda cannot be ruled out to favour Chiquita Brands. It is not a crime to do a study for the defence given that the study was been done according to the practice of good scientific work. If it was conducted intentionally leaving out known facts, it is just a biased expert opinion, much like an opinion column in a weekly magazine. This is the ethical aspect that both should clarify to avoid damage to their reputation as public intellectuals. So far, neither Restrepo nor Akerman has officially responded to the allegations on social media.
It is important to note that the federal jury apparently was not impressed by the argumentation of the study. In conclusion, justice was served.
I will keep you posted on how the story is going to develop.