Controversy seems to surround diamonds and that only adds to their mystique. So many people have died because of diamonds and the diamond trade that many refuse to own them as a matter of principle. The Kimberly Process bans the sale of diamonds that are surrounded by violence in an attempt to fix the reputation that diamonds have throughout the world. In Africa, rough diamonds were used to fund violence and the rebels who were involved killed many people in the mining trade in that area. Blood diamonds are banned from sale and it is illegal to be in possession of rough cut stones as they could be blood diamonds. Anyone caught in possession of rough cut diamonds could face severe penalties for having them and the recent case involving Naomi Campbell shows how dangerous it can be to have them in any capacity. Naomi claims to have been given some rough cut diamonds after a dinner in 1997. She then gave the diamonds to Jeremy Ractliffe, who was the chief executive of the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund at the time.

Mr. Ractliffe held onto the diamonds for 13 years in a safe not sure what to do with them. He clearly had no intention of selling them or doing anything shady, so a judge declared him innocent of all wrongdoing in the case to the relief of his wife and five children. They were concerned he would get in trouble for having the diamonds, but as the laws are there to punish people who are doing the wrong thing, a crime was never really committed. Mr. Ractliffe had no intent and has not had a criminal history, so the judge understood his fear and incorrect choice to hide the diamonds in a safe for all of these years. He simply wanted to keep everyone’s name out of the media and preserve the reputations of all of those involved including Campbell, Mandela and himself. Campbell claims she was given the diamonds by three unidentified men, but many believe it was Charles Taylor, the then president of Liberia. He is currently being tried and it remains to be seen if he was involved.

The moral of the story is that if you have no intention of doing anything wrong, you should avoid hiding things from anyone. Mr. Ractliffe may have saved face by hiding the evidence, but it is now coming out and he may have been better off giving up the stones at the time to save him grief now. He certainly never planned for it to be so long and drawn out, but he also knew he had good intentions and knew all along that he was innocent. He is certainly glad that the government and the judge see it this way as well.  Only Mr. Ractliffe can really tell if he made the right choice as we have no idea how things would have gone down if he had just stepped forward back in 1997 when he received the contraband.

Similar Posts:

Share