After Inferno in a textile factory: Pakistani victims sue KiK in Dortmund

As of: 28.11.2018 | Reading time: 4 minutes

MHell begins with a deafening bang. The factory in the suburbs of the Pakistani port city of Karachi is quickly smoky. Workers are screaming for help. The escape is hardly possible. Only one door should have been opened. Sewing machines fly against grilles in front of windows. Hands tear at the bars to free them from the anchor. Some are panicked by the windows of the three-story building. Many remain trapped and burn beyond recognition. The authorities have more than 250 dead and dozens wounded. Six years after the worst industrial accident in the history of Pakistan, the case is subject to Germany.

Four people complained in Dortmund, as part of an unprecedented sensational process, against the textile discounter KiK, then the main contractor. Saeeda Khatoon lost her son in the flames. "He was 18," she said Wednesday, one day before the start of civil proceedings. Almost no one managed to get out of the building on September 11, 2012. "We shouted, no one helped.My child did not go out.The next morning we received the body of my child, "she said in tears. She shows her picture. "I want justice."

Two other plaintiffs are crying for their loved ones. In addition, a textile worker complains of having survived the accident seriously injured. Most employees of Ali Enterprises in Karachi had sewn jeans and underwear from shoulder to shoulder, especially at KiK, based in Bönen, near Dortmund. So now the process in the Ruhr area. At the request of the plaintiffs, the Dortmund District Court negotiates under Pakistani law.

What is the responsibility of companies?

On the one hand, it is about 30,000 compensation, but in principle much more. This test raises a central question that touches on the division of labor in times of globalization: what is the scope of responsibility of large German companies with regard to the working conditions and standards of their suppliers in developing countries? The complainants state that KiK is jointly responsible for the inadequate fire protection measures taken in the factory and wish the discounter to be held responsible.

This is a precedent that is likely to cause commercial unrest, said Miriam Saage-Maß of the European Center for Constitutional Rights and Human Rights (ECCHR). The very fact that such a claim was admitted constitutes an exclamation point and radiates from the whole sector. The Human Rights Association ECCHR and the Medico International organization support the plaintiffs in civil proceedings.

Read also

The main problem is that the "inhuman" working conditions in Pakistan have not improved at all, criticizes the unionist Nasir Mansoor. "Companies and factory owners have learned nothing from the tragedy." And: "Workers have no rights." Security standards continue to be inadequate and disturbing. It could come back at any time to such a catastrophe, warns Mansoor. Textile factories mainly produce for the European market and North America. That's why you are responsible, says Mansoor.

KiK speculates on prescription

Thomas Seibert of Medico is even clearer: German textile companies have deliberately outsourced their production to low-wage countries, such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, precisely because the standards are low, is his criticism. He therefore needs binding rules and sanction options. "The time for voluntary commitments is over."

KiK is convinced that the trial will fail. "We presume that the district court will dismiss the limitation petition," Gunther Lehleiter group lawyer recently said – and referred to a corresponding court-appointed opinion. The disaster was the result of "a terrorist protection raid on the local mafia", which had set fire to it. The discounter has already provided more than six million dollars (5.3 million euros) to help those affected. The claim for damages claims KiK.

Miriam Saage-Maaß of the ECCHR does not expect a prescription – the outcome of the trial is open. It is clear in advance: the applicant Muhammad Hanif does not come to Dortmund. Seibert complains: for "reluctance or negligence", he did not receive a visa from the German consulate. Thus, the only survivor among the plaintiffs will not be able to speak on their own behalf.