Report 33 – The first female plaintiff is heard
This week, it was time the first female plaintiff to testify in the Lundin Oil trial. In addition, parts of the hearing were held behind closed doors, in accordance with the Swedish Privacy Act. The prosecution faced resistance from one of the plaintiffs, while the other testified vividly and openly. The defense continued their overall strategy of claiming that the plaintiffs had made contradictory statements during the earlier investigation.
Hearing with Bol Maker Kol
After welcoming the week’s first plaintiff, Bol Maker Kor, Judge Zander guided him through the day’s agenda, explaining the order in which the parties would speak. These greetings seem to have expanded week by week, from a short welcome for first plaintiff to the current longer introduction.
Prosecutor Ewa Marie Häggqvist then initiated the hearing by asking Bol to describe his background. Unlike the previous plaintiffs, Bol spoke only very briefly of his background before moving on to the attacks. Bol explained that he was born in 1981 in the centre of the village of Duar. He attended primary school where he learned to read and write, and later moved to Khartoum where he continued his studies at university. Bol is today highly educated with a master’s degree in social science.
The attack on Duar
In 1997, Bol’s family lived a peaceful life with their settlement and cattle, consisting of approximately 120 cows. When asked to describe Duar, Bol explained that Duar had a school, stores and medical services. The peace ended in September 1998, when Paulino Matiep’s and Riek Machar’s ground troops entered Duar. Bol witnessed the soldiers entering the village as he played with his friends. When they saw the soldiers coming, the playing children instantly ran east, in the direction of Kuach, seeking protection. Bol described that the entire village was burned to the ground. Since there was nothing left of Duar, Bol’s family fled to Kuach where they stayed until 2002.
Prosecutor Ewa Marie Häggqvist seemed to want Bol to speak of the road construction carried out by the Lundin company, asking if he recognized the word “kilo” which earlier plaintiffs had used to describe different points along the road. This turned out to be a failed attempt, since Bol replied only that Kilo 40 and 50 were situated near Kuach without explaining further. Instead, Bol continued his testimony, explaining that while in Kuach, he was forcibly recruited to the militias led by Paulino Matiep.
Bol was forcibly recruited on two occasions. When asked to elaborate on the abduction, he explained that a number of Paulino Matiep’s soldiers approached him. Some wore military uniforms while others had civilian clothing. Allegedly, Bol was abducted for two months during the first occasion in Nhialdiu. After being given a uniform and weapons, he was told to collect food from the villagers. During one of these occasions when he was sent to collect food, he took the opportunity to flee. During the other occasion in 1999, Bol was taken to Nyong, although he admitted that he was unsure if he had been abducted by Matiep’s or Machar’s soldiers. Bol was held against his will for three months before he found an opportunity to flee. When the prosecution asked him to speak of what happened in 1999, presumably trying to get him to talk about the attacks described in the indictment, Bol said that he did not want to talk about that since he was not directly affected. Surprisingly, the prosecution did not ask follow-up questions.
Aerial strikes against Kuach
Bol continued his story, alleging that Kuach was attacked by aerial bombardment in 2000. According to Bol, the Antonov planes that bombed the area made a specific sound that the inhabitants clearly recognized. The Antonovs flew very close to the ground, strategically dropping bombs on areas where people were gathered. When asked to describe the planes, Bol explained that they dropped barrels filled with chemicals that detonated upon impact. Bol added he also saw gunships in the area during this period. When prosecutor Ewa Marie Häggqvist asked for further details of the attack, Bol briefly said that he was only three luaks apart from the luak that exploded.
The prosecution appeared to struggle to elicit the level of detail they wanted from Bol, whose testimony was overall rather incoherent. It appeared that Bol had provided more detailed information during his interview during the investigation, in comparison with today’s hearing. The prosecution appeared displeased with Bol’s short replies. After the lunch break, the prosecution claimed that they had received information regarding the plaintiff’s ability to testify freely. Judge Zander decided that the issue would have to be evaluated behind closed doors upon the prosecution’s request. After a long break, Bol continued testifying about the attack in Kuach.
Ground force strikes against Kuach
In January 2000, ground troops arrived in Kuach by military vehicles and on horseback, heavily armed with machine guns. Bol’s parents were both shot and injured during the attack. The prosecution seemingly wanted Bol to give further details regarding the aerial bombardment, asking rather pointedly: “So there were no bombs dropped, and they did not shoot from gunships?” As the prosecutor posed this question, one of the company’s legal team could be seen shaking her head, presumably reacting to the leading question. During this part of his testimony, Bol’s responses suddenly became significantly shorter. For instance, when the prosecution asked: “Do you know what happened to the other inhabitants?” Bol replied: “I know nothing.” It appeared that something had happened during the break in terms of Bol’s willingness to testify openly.
The prosecution continued, claiming that Bol had previously told the police that he saw three bombs dropped on Kuach, not one as he had stated today. Judge Zander broke in, stressing that the prosecution needed to present what they were referring to. The presentation screens descended slowly, and the transcripts from the 2019 investigation held in Kampala were presented. As expected, the extract showed that Bol had given significantly more detailed testimony during the investigation. Bol repeated that he had only witnessed one bomb killing civilians, and that although he admitted seeing the bombs dropping, he did not see the victims being hit by the remaining two. Prosecutor Ewa Marie Häggqvist sighed, clearly dissatisfied with his resistance.
Cross-examination by Ian Lundin’s defense
On the second day of the week’s hearing, Ian Lundin’s counsel Torgny Wetterberg was given the floor. Chief prosecutor Henrik Attorps had returned to the courtroom, formally dressed in a dark suit and tie. After introducing himself to the plaintiff, Torgny Wetterberg started the cross-examination by following the pattern of initially asking personal questions, such as what religion Bol practiced.
The defense continued by asking how many people were living in Kuach, which Bol struggled to specify. After a short discussion, the defense cited an extract from the investigation in which Bol had claimed that approximately a thousand people lived in Kuach. Bol stated that at the time, he had been uncertain about that number. Torgny Wetterberg continued asking about where Kuach was situated in relation to Bentiu, to which Bol answered “Southeast, facing the sunrise.” Since this was difficult for the court to comprehend, Bol illustrated his statement, drawing on a paper. When the Nuer interpreter showed the paper to Torgny Wetterberg, Judge Zander objected, stating that it needed to be presented to all parties. Torgny Wetterberg ignored Judge Zander’s objection, saying: “He draws exactly how I interpreted it, between kilo 40 and kilo 50,” and then continuing the questioning, asking if the villages of Kwosh and Kuach were the same village. Bol answered that the later name, Kuach, was correct, although he admitted that the areas overlap.
The road construction
The defense then switched focus to the road construction. When Bol estimated that the road construction happened between1999-2003, Torgny Wetterberg referred to another contradictory statement he had made, since Bol had previously claimed that it started in 2000. When asked if he knew the reason why the road constructors did not want civilians crossing the roads, Bol answered that women were raped and men were killed, seemingly miscomprehending the question.
Furthermore, the defense cited a statement made by a Lundin Oil manager, Richard Ramsey, saying that civilians frequently used the roads for transportation. Bol pointed out that the quotation referred to Kwosh, and not to Kuach. Torgny Wetterberg highlighted the irrelevance of this distinction since it was the same road. Bol seemed eager to ask about the people who had made these statements, asking where they were from. Judge Zander broke in, explaining to Bol that the purpose of the cross-examination was for him to comment the on the discrepancies in his statements, rather than to ask questions. When confronted with a report describing traffic between Rubkona to Leer, Bol stated that it was untrue and questioned the report’s credibility. This appeared to be a relevant comment as it turned out that the reports had been written by employees at Lundin Oil, including Ian Hood and Richard Ramsey.
In addition, Torgny Wetterberg displayed a number of photographs taken by the filmmaker Bengt Nilsson. One photo showed women and children walking on a road, carrying bundles of hay on their heads. When asked by Judge Zander to provide further details about the images, Wetterberg clarified that the picture was taken around 2001. Bol asked where the nearby river was situated on the pictures, whereby Torgny Wetterberg answered it was not suitable to have that sort of discussion.
Bol was then presented with a photograph of two men and asked if he recognized them. Bol replied he had heard of one of the men. The defense explained that the men in the photos had stated that the road construction was profitable for the local society and that they had no issues with the oil companies. According to these men, the biggest issue was that Peter Gadet had burned down their houses, and the lack of water. Bol replied that they lived in different areas and therefore most likely had had different experiences.
When asked to comment on a report that stated that the soldiers present in the area were in fact SSIM soldiers rather than Matiep soldiers, Bol answered that many SSIM soldiers originated from Kuach. SSIM soldiers had family in the area, but they were not operating there. The military barrack was situated there. When asked about James Leer, Bol explained he was aligned with the militias. Torgny Wetterberg continued asking what Bol knew about Peter Gadet. Bol was aware that settlements were plundered, although he was told that the militias were responsible, not necessarily Peter Gadet.
Torgny Wetterberg then stated that the son of a former Lundin Oil employee, James Leer, had claimed that it was Gadet’s militias who had executed the attack in Kuach – the attack in which girls and women were abducted. Judge Zander suddenly said, “Do not refer to other plaintiffs, it is an odd technique.” Chief prosecutor Henrik Attorps added, “You cannot portray these claims as they are facts, it appears confusing to the plaintiff”. Wetterberg replied “I am allowed to claim that this is true” whereby Attorps replied “Yes, you claim so.” The discussion was ended by Judge Zander, who again asked the defense not to refer to the testimony of other plaintiffs in order to avoid confusion.
The defense ended the cross-examination by asking about the attack in Duar. Bol had earlier stated that the Matiep soldiers had burnt down Medecin Sans Frontieres’ basecamp. The defense presented a report from MSF which stated that the attack was carried out by SSIM soldiers led by Tito Biel. Bol responded that this was untrue, clarifying that Matiep was in Rup Nagai fighting with Ben Choul, the sub-commander to Riek Machar. Matiep burned the village to the ground, which Bol claimed to have seen personally. Since Alexandre Schneiter’s counsel Per E. Samuelsson had no questions, the hearing with Bol Maker Kol was concluded.
Hearing with Sara Nial Dual Diu
On Wednesday the 26th of September, it was time for the first female plaintiff to be heard. Sara Nial Dual Diu conveyed a calm impression as she sat at the plaintiffs’ table, surrounded by men in dark suits. Before the hearing started, Henrik Attorps asked to share something with the court behind closed doors, in accordance with the Swedish Privacy Act. After a short break, the public audience was permitted to re-enter Courtroom 34.
The floor was given to plaintiff’s counsel Percy Bratt, who gave a short introduction about Sara. Sara was born in 1983 in Leer and later moved to Bouw in Kouch County. Sara was subjected to severe sexual abuse and cruel and inhuman treatment by the regime led militias during the relevant time period. Given the sensitive nature of the matter, Percy Bratt stressed that the parties must have this in mind during the hearing. Furthermore, Sara had been subjected to aerial bombardment by Antonov planes and gunships. While Martina Winslow started the questioning on behalf of the prosecution, a courthouse security guard entered the courtroom, which does not usually happen.
Sexual abuse as a weapon of war
When given the opportunity to speak freely, Sara instantly shared her story of being abducted and becoming a victim of sexual violence by the militias.
In 1997, Sara was on her way home from school when she, along with other girls, was abducted by the regime led militias. Sara was twelve years old at the time. She remembered being forced to carry heavy barrels during the walk, although she was suffering from a severe injury to her foot. When they stopped to sleep for the night, the girls were sexually abused. Sara explained that the militias divided the victims amongst one another, pointing out who they wanted to abuse. The commander of the group was the first to choose and chose Sara.
Sara described it as a difficult time, adding that it hurt just thinking about it. She was held captive for approximately three months. When an attack was carried out in the area, the militias discussed whether it was profitable to keep holding the girls captive or if they should kill them instead. Sara and the three other girls talked amongst themselves about the risks of trying to escape. One girl expressed that they might as well take the risk since things could not get any worse than their present situation. As they began their escape, one of the girls was shot and killed. Not knowing where they were headed, Sara and the two remaining girls continued onwards, ultimately ending up in Duar.
The attack in Duar
During their three day walk, the girls happened to pass through an area that was subjected to aerial bombardment by gunships. Without telephones, Sara was unable to contact her family and did not even know if they were dead or alive. When they arrived in in Duar after walking for three days, Sara was finally able to eat since the UN assistance program was handing out food and necessities. After reuniting with her brothers, Sara and her brothers fled to a swamp area called Thornyor as the ground forces had reached Duar. However, since the area was already occupied by the militias, Sara decided to flee to Leer.
After Sara’s free-flowing testimony, prosecutor Martina Winslow started the questioning by asking Sara to elaborate on the event where she was attacked in Buow. Sara alleged that it was troops under the command of Gatluak Gai, a member of the SPLA, who had carried out the attack. Through further questioning by the prosecution, it became clear that the SPLA were responsible for the abduction. Moreover, the SPLA had also locked Sara’s grandmother in her house, only to burn it to the ground.
Matiep and Machar attack Leer
Furthermore, Sara testified about an attack in Leer in 1999. Ground troops led by Paulino Matiep and Riek Machar arrived by morning. After some time, the area was subjected to Antonov and gunship attacks. When the militias had gained control over the area, they divided cattle and settlements among one another. According to Sara, the purpose of the attack was to depopulate the area of the civilian inhabitants. Saras uncles were targeted and killed by the Antonovs. It was during this occasion that Sara witnessed a woman and her newborn baby being killed by shrapnel – she described the child as having been “cut in half.”
Cross-examination by Tomas Tendorf
After lunch, Ian Lundin’s counsel Tomas Tendorf started the cross-examination on behalf of the Lundin defense team. The defense seemed to take a softer approach towards Sara, employing a gentler tone in their questioning in comparison to other plaintiffs.
Before the break, Sara had stated that the war broke out in 1998. After the break, she corrected the year to 1999. Tomas Tendorf highlighted that 1999 was contradictory to her statement in the police investigation from 2017, where she claimed it was 1998. Sara explained that the memory is affected from going through traumatic events, and that it was first now that she could recall the correct year. Tendorf confronted Sara with an extract from the investigation in which she had stated that the only attack she herself had experienced was the helicopter attack in Thornyor. Sara replied that she had not been able to recall specific times and distances since she was a child.
Cross-examination by Per E. Samuelsson
The floor was given to Alexandre Schneiter’s counsel Per E. Samuelsson, who also used a softer tone than usual when questioning Sara. Similar to the questioning by Tomas Tendorf, Samuelsson focused on highlighting contradictory statements that Sara had made during the investigation. The defense started by asking when Sara had been captured in 1997, to which Sara replied that she did not remember. The defense then presented an extract in which she had responded that it was September. When asked how long she was held captive, she answered that she does not remember for exactly how long, approximately 1-3 months.
Moreover, Sara was confronted with a previous statement that her mother had been in Duar, rather than in Leer, during this time period. When asked why she did not celebrate Christmas in Leer after fleeing from Duar, Sara replied: “If you were held for months being raped, what would you do when returning – celebrate Christmas?” highlighting the absurdity of the question.
When confronted with her previous statement that her sister was abducted in 1998 rather than in 1999, Sara responded that she has been unwilling to speak of her sister until this point. Sara explained that her sister was raped and later bore a child as a result of the rape. Although Sara had spoken of being subjected to inhuman and cruel treatment, this appeared to be the most sensitive subject for her. When at one point Per E. Samuelsson interrupted her, Sara said calmly: “Wait until I’m done speaking. I am now the caregiver to this child.” With that, Samuelsson continued to the next question.
Samuelsson continued by showing the defense’s own translation of the investigation transcript while playing the audiotape for the court. In the audiotape, the interpreter translated Sara as saying that the only attack she witnessed was the attack in Thornyor – she had only heard that other places had been bombed. Samuelsson claimed that this was a significant contradiction to the statements she had made today. Sara nodded her head while stating that she had personally seen all of the attacks mentioned.
Suddenly, prosecutor Martina Winslow broke in, expressing her concern that it was confusing to have to listen to the audio tapes, stressing that things were not usually done in this way. Judge Zander reminded them that the parties had agreed to handle it this way. Winslow suggested that it would be appropriate to take a break while the prosecution listened to the files. When plaintiff’s counsel Tomas Bodström agreed with the prosecution, Judge Zander appeared irritated, saying that Bodström had not been present when the decision was made. Bodström claimed that it was simply a technique from the defense intended to create confusion – Bodström knew this as he himself is a defense lawyer. A visibly irritated Per E. Samuelsson then said that if Tomas Bodström were present in the courtroom on a daily basis as everyone else was, he would have known that this decision had been made. “This whole discussion has been recorded by accident, how funny” said Judge Zander, putting an end to the discussion.
Lastly, Sara added that she had been nervous during the police investigation. She expressed fear that she would be attacked in court by armed forces for saying the wrong things, stressing that she did not want to mislead anyone during the hearing. With those final comments, the week’s hearing concluded.
Next week’s report
Next week’s report will cover the testimony of the twentieth and twenty-first plaintiffs, Angelina Nyazoala and Samuel Gatjang Deng Kot.
