Report 25: Testimony of the second Lundin Oil plaintiff

The examination of the Lundin Oil trial’s first plaintiff, Reverend James Ninrew Dong, concluded early enough in the day on Tuesday, 4 June 2024 that the Court decided to move directly into hearing testimony from the second plaintiff, Matthew Mattiang Deang. This required the Nuer interpreters, who had been relegated to the back of the courtroom when it turned out that James Ninrew Dong would testify in English, to return to the front where they took their seats beside the plaintiffs. Following brief welcome remarks from Judge Tomas Zander, prosecutor Ewa Korpi began her direct examination of the witness. As with the first plaintiff, she began by asking about his background, and stressed that it was important that he clearly distinguish between what he had personally experienced and what he had heard from others.

Matthew Mattiang Deang was born in 1948 in Row, a small village about a three hour’s walk west of Koch. He is the youngest of three brothers and is married with nine children. In addition to his mother tongue of Nuer, he speaks English and Arabic. Following university studies in Kenya, he completed a master’s degree in divinity. During this time, he also became ordained as a priest, a job that took him and his family to northern Sudan, Malakal, and Khartoum. In 1988, he had the opportunity to complete some of his master’s studies in Korea. After returning to Sudan in 1990, he continued his work as a pastor in the Presbyterian Church, translating the Bible and taking care of congregations in the Upper Nile region. As he was responsible for all the congregations in the entire region, both Eastern and Western Upper Nile, he traveled frequently from place to place to carry out his duties. While he was away, his older brother took care of the family’s cattle in a village called Gangi.  

In 1998, Matthew Mattiang Deang was appointed to the New Sudan Council of Churches (NSCC). His new position as a peace coordinator involved going around and talking to communities about the need for peace between the Nuer and Dinka tribes in the Bahr el Ghazal region. At that time, he explained to the Court, the Western Nuer and Dinka communities had been warring for seven years. When the SPLA split in 1991, the Dinka supported John Garang while the Western Nuer rallied behind Riek Machar. As part of the ongoing conflict, each side would raid into the other’s territory, abducting women and children and stealing cattle. In 1998, Matthew Mattiang Deang and the NSCC gathered chiefs from both sides for peace talks, culminating in the 1999 People to People Peace Conference (also known as the Wonlit Peace Conference). During these talks, the chiefs agreed to have peace – a peace which the plaintiff reported continues until today. The abducted women and children were returned to their rightful homes and cattle raiding became less frequent, although it did still occasionally occur along the border areas. Upon being asked to describe the type of warfare and weaponry used during the conflict, Matthew Mattiang Deang explained that it had begun with simple spears, but over time weapons like Kalashnikov guns became more common.

Here, his testimony touched on the impact of oil in the region. He recounted that in 1997, a group of oil companies known as GNPOC, including Lundin Oil, began coming to the Block 5A area from Bentiu and going to Leer, which led to displacement as people living in those areas were forced to flee. The oil company had the support of the Sudanese government, and when it wanted to exploit the oil in the region, the government would bomb those areas, including villages, driving out the inhabitants. “People ran away for their life,” he recalled.

He went on to describe the village where he grew up as peaceful. The first company to discover oil in the Western Upper Nile region was Chevron, and he testified that when Chevron came to the area, they did not force people to flee. Instead, they worked together with the villagers, describing where they would be exploring. If oil was discovered in a particular area, Chevron would explain to the inhabitants that they needed to move and then provided them compensation and helped them move. He described it as taking over the area in a peaceful way to exploit it. However, when GNPOC and the others came to the area in 1997, they took a much more violent approach.

Here, the prosecution turned its focus to local governance during this period, asking if his home area was under rebel control or governed by the regime. He explained that only civilians lived there. The Sudanese government ruled the whole country but governed locally through civil administration. Koch and its surrounding villages were under civil administration, led by a civilian chief appointed by the villagers. The chief’s role was to resolve conflicts between individuals in the community. As a pastor, Matthew Mattiang Deang’s role in this society was to preach to his congregation and work to convert non-believers to Christianity. He explained that there were approximately 160,000 individuals living in the Koch area. While he could not estimate the size of villages, he explained that the populations could be estimated when relief aid arrived as one could count the number of people waiting in the food distribution lines.

The civilians in Koch were primarily farmers and cattle herders. Owning cattle was very important, although some people owned more than others. The local economy was based on cattle as they were used to trade. It was mostly the youth who took the cattle out to the pastures during the summer season to graze. The elderly tended to stay home while younger people moved with the cattle. Up until 1997, the area was generally peaceful. There were occasional clashes between clans, usually stemming from conflicts between individuals; for example, if one person committed a crime or abducted a woman from another clan.

Things would become more violent. The Sudanese government had a base in Bentiu. When they wanted to go to Thar Jath, where Lundin Oil had its operations, they would carry out attacks, bombing civilians on the ground and injuring them. This started in 1998 and carried on through 2002. Asked by the prosecution why this happened, Matthew Mattiang Deang replied that his understanding was that they did not want civilians living in the areas where they were prospecting for oil, clarifying that by “they” he meant the Sudanese government and the oil companies. To accomplish this, they drove out the civilian populations, coming into the villages and setting fire to the huts. The regime used both ground troops and helicopter gunships to attack civilians. This occurred in Rier and a larger area, Jok.

The prosecution sought to clarify the events that the plaintiff had experienced himself and which he had heard about from others. He was asked about the places he had visited as part of his work and how he traveled around. He recounted that he often relied on UN and Operation Lifeline flights, as well as flights arranged by many other NGOs operating in the region, including Christian Aid, which was a partner of the New Sudan Council of Churches. NSCC would arrange the contact with the NGOs. He traveled on many assistance flights, approximately one to two per month. The areas he traveled to were under rebel control as he could not travel freely to the regime-controlled areas. During his travels, his family remained in Nairobi, Kenya.

 The prosecution asked him to clarify that the clan conflicts he had previously described existed before and after 1998, including in the Koch area. They were both Nuer-Nuer and Nuer-Dinka clashes. In Western Upper Nile especially, there were many clans, even within the same tribe, that clashed. However, the regime was not part of such conflicts, though it would sometimes intervene to end the fighting by separating the parties and disciplining those responsible.

As oil exploration increased after 1997, the regime began arming militia groups and providing them with weapons, including the group led by Matiep. Matthew Mattiang Deang testified that the government gave Matiep weapons to fight the rebels, but when there were no rebels to be found, the militia group would come to villages and take their cattle for food. This occurred from 1997-2002. His group was, according to the plaintiff, the only armed militia group in Western Upper Nile during this time. Only the regime had access to weaponry such as bomber planes. Matthew Mattiang Deang described the Antonov planes as white in color and the helicopter gunships as blue, testifying that he had seen both. He described how the Antonovs flew at high altitudes while the helicopters flew near to the ground.

Here, the prosecution turned its focus to the attacks that Matthew Mattiang Deang had personally experienced, asking him to describe to the best of his ability the locations and times when they occurred. The first attack he recounted was a bombing of Koch on 26 February 2002. During the attack, he hid in a bomb shelter. He described it as stressful – they bombed almost all day, dropping bombs, leaving and then returning after a few hours to bomb again. The whole community had to take shelter, people fled, and it was a very difficult day. The bombs exploded when they hit the ground and anyone nearby would be cut down. When asked how he remembered the exact date, he replied that it was because many people were killed there that day. In addition to the bombs dropped from planes, ground troops came in using heavy weapons, forcing people to flee. He saw it himself. He was in the area as a pastor and moderator to see his church and pastors, and during his visit the community asked them to help resolve a local inter-clan conflict, so it became a peace conference. When the prosecution asked if any other pastors or chiefs were present, Matthew Mattiang Deang pointed to the other plaintiffs. “These chiefs were there, and James was the pastor in Koch.” To clarify for the record, he named each of them: Chief Tomas Malual, Chief Peter Ring Patay, and Pastor James Kuong Ninrew, among others. He said that there were no SPLA rebels in the area: they had not seen any and in general the rebel army was around Bentiu. He said that a woman, a man, and a child, along with their cattle, had been killed during the bombing. He recalled that the bombers returned three times, dropping many bombs. Afterwards, he saw the fallen bombs and the barn where the family was killed, which had burned down. The bodies in the barn were burned so the survivors buried them. The community returned to daily life and people returned. The ground troops did not come all the way to Koch but stopped in Leer. They were government troops along with militia groups. Matthew Mattiang Deang and others could hear them coming and saw when they arrived and began burning. Asked if he could see their uniforms, he replied emphatically that you couldn’t see them with your own eyes – if you could see them, you would be killed, so the villagers just fled to hide in the bushes. During the aerial bombings, he hid in the church’s bomb shelter. The villagers dug the shelters themselves, digging as far down as they could. Here, he pointed to his chest, indicating that was as far down as they could dig. Then they would lie down in the holes to protect themselves. Following the conference and the attack, Matthew Mattiang Deang stayed in Koch for three months. He and the survivors thanked God that not everyone had been killed during the bombings.

After leaving Koch, Matthew Mattiang Deang moved to Wicok. On 22 May there was fighting in Nhialdiu. After defeating the SPLA in another area, the regime came back to Wicok and bombed an area where only civilians were living. He heard about the fighting in Nhialdiu from those who had fled. He himself could hear shooting and see smoke rising from the burned villages. When the bombers came to Wicok, he and others ran into the forest and hid in the bushes. They could see civilians running away. The fleeing villagers reported that there were vehicles with registration tags in Arabic and mounted weapons, which were being used to shoot civilians. He also heard that three people were killed and later buried. The village in Wicok was burned. He recalled that blue helicopters were used. He remained hiding in the forest for two days, then returned to the village, although it had been burned down. Many huts had been burned and buildings made of brick had had their roofs and windows destroyed. The church they had been in had burned down. Those who fled suffered thirst and hunger. He estimated that the village’s population was about 4000 people. He testified that there were no SPLA rebels in the area because they were in Nhialdiu. People knew this, that there were no SPLA there, because it was a Nuer area and everyone knew where the SPLA was. He likened it to people in Stockholm knowing about the surrounding cities – people in the community knew these things.  

Returning to the bombing of Koch that he had previously described, he testified that Bieh, Leer, and Nimni had also been bombed. The same day that he had experience the bombing, the planes continued on to bomb Nimni and Koch. The whole civilian population wept that day, he said. It was his home area, so everyone was talking about the bombings. On the same day, 26 February 2002, the UN had been delivering food aid in Bieh and even that area had been bombed. They had radio contact with them and learned that people were killed. Because it was their area, they were all affected by the news of the bombing. In the bombing of Nimni, two priests were killed, which Matthew Mattiang Deang learned about via radio communication. He said that there were no SPLA rebels in the area.

The prosecution then asked the plaintiff questions about how he and his family had personally been affected. He testified that in September 1999, the village of Gangi, where his family owned land and cattle, was attacked. His brother’s daughter was raped and tortured. The attackers, government troops and affiliated militia, burned their houses to the ground and took their cattle. At the time, Matthew Mattiang Deang was in Nhial and learned about this via radio communication. He learned details of who the attackers were from the church pastors and relatives who were present during the attack. They told him that it was Matiep and his militia group – they recognized them and knew that the attackers were government soldiers and militia. In addition to his niece, many others suffered – about 15 civilians living there, members of his congregation. He learned that the entire village had been destroyed and all the cattle taken. The inhabitants fled to safety but eventually returned to rebuild their homes and lives. He testified that there were no SPLA rebels in the area. They had never lived in villages in the area, nor did they have family members there, and there were no other rebel groups there. Matthew Mattiang Deang and his brothers lost 57 cattle, as well as a barn and small huts where people lived.

The prosecution then went on to ask about the Presbyterian Church’s connections to the SPLA. Some members of the church were also SPLA members, including Riek Machar who was a member of the same congregation. Matthew Mattiang Deang stated that he himself had never been a member of SPLA/M. Although Machar was older than him, they grew up together. He also knew Peter Gadet, whom he described as a loyal soldier committed to the liberation of southern Sudan, Peter Paar, who was a rebel the whole time, James Lieu Diah, and Matiep, whom he also knew well personally. He said that Matiep had first been loyal to the SPLA, but then changed sides and went over to the regime’s side in about 1994. Upon joining the regime’s side, he received weapons from them – as did many other rebel leaders who switched sides. Matiep was loyal to the regime until he returned to the SPLA in 2005 following a peace treaty between the government and the SPLA.

Here, the prosecution’s line of questioning turned to the plaintiff’s involvement in the Talisman court case, which James Ninrew Dong had also been asked about. Matthew Mattiang Deang, the Presbyterian Church, and the community had a meeting where they decided to sue Talisman. Lundin Oil was mentioned in the process because they were seen as being part of GNPOC: he said that the name GNPOC was an umbrella name that included Petronas and Lundin Oil. During the Talisman investigation, he had made his statements in English. He explained that it was the community that was behind the case, and the Presbyterian Church was also involved. When asked how the case concluded, here Matthew Mattiang Deang spoke in English: “The tribalism of the European, the American, and Canadian – they were jealous to compensate the destruction which they made.”

The prosecution then asked Matthew Mattiang Deang about various people – if he knew them and if so, how. They also asked about his involvement with Liech Victims Voices, of which he is the chairman. The group, which still exists, was organized to talk about the suffering that the communities had experienced. He also testified that he and James Ninrew Dong had come to Sweden in 2011 or 2012. During this visit, they met with members of Parliament and with church members to share their experiences

The following day of trial began with the prosecution returning to specific incidents that the plaintiff had mentioned the previous day, including the location of churches that had been destroyed. During attacks in 1999 and onwards by the government troops, they burned entire villages, including the churches. Matthew Mattiang Deang learned of this destruction from the local priests who reported to him, but also later saw some of the destroyed churches himself when he visited those areas.

He then gave additional details about the attack he had experienced in Koch, making clear that the specific attack he was describing took place over a single day, although Koch had been bombed many times between 2001-2003 as it was near the oil areas. Through his testimony, it also became clear that the blue helicopter gunships he described were actually shooting civilians rather than dropping bombs, and that it was white airplanes, which he also saw, that dropped the bombs. He said that there were Antonov planes, which flew at higher altitudes, and that they came first and dropped bombs, and then the helicopter gunships would follow.

Here, Judge Zander broke in to ask, as he had done on a number of occasions during the plaintiff’s testimony, that the prosecutor refrain from including too much descriptive information in her questions, but instead ask shorter questions and just let the witness answer. In this particular instance, the judge believed that the prosecutor had referred to Antonov airplanes in her question when the witness himself had not used the term “Antonov.” When the prosecutor began explaining her understanding of the response, the judge raised his voice, saying sharply “I don’t want to have a discussion in the courtroom about my instructions!” He continued, explaining that his comment about the form of the questions was his advice to the prosecution, which they could choose to follow or not. He then invited the prosecutor to continue her questions, but she asked that it be noted that she had interpreted the witness’s response differently than the judge and that others had also done so, and that she felt the reprimand to be very unfair. At this, the judge told the interpreters that they could stop translating and that they would stop the recording to address this. He asked the defense to weigh in, and they took the opportunity to state that that all the substantive information was coming in through the prosecutor’s questions, not the witness’s responses, and that to elicit a statement from a witness, they should just ask what happened instead of saying what happened. Judge Zander said that ultimately it was about how the Court perceived the framing of the questions, and it would go to the probative value of the evidence.

Following this discussion, the prosecution resumed questioning the plaintiff, eliciting additional details about the attacks he had described and trying to clarify what he had personally experienced or seen and what had been told to him by others. He was also asked about other individuals and organizations he had had contact with at various points, including Egbert Wesserlink, Petter Bolme, and the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS). He recalled Egbert Wesserlink as being the ECOS representative whom he and other survivors had met. Although he could not remember the name Bolme, he said he had met a Petter via Liech Victims Voices; Petter met with the organization to talk about the case. Asked again about Peter Gadet, Peter Paar, and James Lieu Diah, he explained that he knew them even prior to the time period 1997-2003 because they were Nuer and Peter Paar was a member of his church. When asked if he still today knew and associated with them, he replied that all three were dead.

Here, the prosecutor said she wanted to go through some discrepancies in the plaintiff’s testimony, which led to another back-and-forth with Judge Zander, who asked why she had not done so at the time the plaintiff made the statement in question. The prosecutor replied that she was under the impression that they had agreed on this setup. The judge pointed out that normally a witness should be confronted with such discrepancies as they came up so that his testimony would still be fresh in his mind, and he would have the opportunity to reflect on his responses and immediately clarify any points of concern. Ultimately the judge allowed the prosecution to continue but advised them to think about avoiding this setup going forward.

The prosecution then went through a series of statements that Matthew Mattiang Deang had given when he was interviewed in 2013 and that differed from what he had said in his present testimony. In 2013 he had stated that Peter Gadet and Peter Paar were present at the peace conference in Koch; however, he was now saying that they were not there. He explained that when people talked about resolving the conflict between Gadet and Paar, they meant between their respective groups, not between the two men personally. He testified again that he did not recall seeing either Gadet or Paar at the peace conference The civilians who were there supported one or the other but were not armed – they were regular unarmed civilians. He also stood firm on the point that the attack had lasted one day, although the prosecution read from his 2013 statement in which he said that he and James Ninrew had had to hide in a shelter for two weeks. Here he explained that he had been in the village for two weeks, but that the bombings he had described took place only on 26 February.

At the conclusion of the prosecution’s direct examination, Judge Zander and the lawyers had another discussion about scheduling. It was decided that they would switch the order of the next two plaintiffs, meaning that Peter Ring Patay would be heard next, followed by Tomas Malual Kap.

The defense’s tactics during the cross-examination were similar to those they had used during the cross-examination of James Ninrew Dong, seeking to undermine the plaintiff’s credibility by asking him questions and then reading from his previous statements to show that he had given different responses. In responding to a question about whether Christian Aid had chartered a flight he had traveled on, Mattew Mattiang Deang replied that he did not know, upon which the defense read from his 2013 statement to Swedish police in which he stated clearly that the organization had in fact chartered the flight. In another instance, when he said that he did not know if the SPLA had been in a particular village, the defense read his previous statement in which he said that the inhabitants were SPLA supporters, that the SPLA lived in the community, and that it was a known SPLA area. He explained the discrepancy by saying that it was a regime-controlled area and there were no SPLA there, but the government used to say that the community supported the SPLA.

The defense asked about Matthew Mattiang Deang’s involvement in the organization Liech Victims Voices and asked him to name other members who were also plaintiffs and witnesses in the case. They also addressed his connection with ECOS, asking whether Liech Victims Voices had helped ECOS or the Swedish investigation. He denied that they had helped identify victims or witnesses, saying that they had only discussed what happened with ECOS and that ECOS and the investigators had found witnesses through other means.

Matthew Mattiang Deang again denied being an SPLA member. However, when he talked about being a member of parliament from 2005 onwards, it was revealed that he represented the SPLM in parliament. Here, the defense homed in on this, pointing out that both the prosecution and the defense had asked whether he was an SPLA or SPLM member and he had always replied in the negative. He explained that the SPLM had been the majority party and that when he was elected by the civilian community to represent them in parliament, the SPLM was the only party through which he could do so. Only after independence were there other political parties. He noted that the SPLM was about political administration while the SPLA was the designation for the military branch. Prior to being elected in 2005, he had never represented the SPLM.

Next report

Our next report will cover the testimony of the third plaintiff, Peter Ring Patay.