Samantar v. Yousuf: the US torture case against a former Somali Prime Minister

Who sued whom?

Bashe Abdi Yousuf and other Somalis sued Mohamed Ali Samatar in a US federal court in Virginia in 2004 (Justia, case 1:2004cv01360). Samatar was Somalia's Defence Minister in the 1980s and Prime Minister from 1987 to 1990. He had lived in Virginia since the government fell in 1991 (SCOTUSblog, 1 Jun 2010).

The plaintiffs said that forces under his command tortured, detained and killed civilians, mainly Isaaq, in the north in the 1980s. They sued under two US laws: the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 and the Alien Tort Statute (Center for Justice and Accountability, Yousuf v. Samantar). The Center for Justice and Accountability acted for them, with law firms working without fee (same source).

What did the US Supreme Court decide in 2010?

Samatar argued that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protected him. That law says a "foreign state shall be immune" from US courts, with some exceptions.

On 1 June 2010 the Supreme Court ruled against him, unanimously (US Supreme Court, opinion 08-1555). It held that "foreign state" in the Act does not cover an individual official acting for that state (SCOTUSblog, 1 Jun 2010). The citation is Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010). The Court sent the case back to decide whether older, common-law rules might still protect him. The New York Times covered the arguments in March 2010 (New York Times, 3 Mar 2010).

What happened after?

• 23 February 2012: at the start of trial, Samatar's lawyer told the court he would accept a default rather than contest the claims (Center for Justice and Accountability).
• 28 August 2012: Judge Leonie Brinkema awarded US$21 million. Each of seven plaintiffs received US$1 million in compensation and US$2 million in punitive damages (Justia, Document 366; Akin Gump, 2012).
• 2 November 2012: the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled he had no common-law immunity either. Chief Judge William Traxler wrote that violations of jus cogens, the highest rules of international law such as the ban on torture, are by definition not acts a state can authorise (Courthouse News; International Crimes Database).
• March 2015: the Supreme Court declined to hear his further appeal, leaving the ruling in place (Akin Gump; Wikipedia, Mohammad Ali Samatar).
• 2016: Samatar died (Wikipedia).

What did Samatar say?

When he accepted the default in 2012, he said he could no longer afford the case and that his health was failing. He said he had "never approved any killings" and called the case politically motivated (CBS News/AP, 28 Aug 2012).

Why the case matters in law

The Center for Justice and Accountability says the Fourth Circuit decision was the first appeals ruling in the US to deny common-law immunity to a foreign official for violations of jus cogens (CJA). The 2010 ruling is cited in later cases about whether former officials of other countries can be sued in the United States (SCOTUSblog).

Related pages

• Mohamed Ali Samatar
• The Siad Barre era, 1969 to 1991