Report 43 – Part III of Ian Lundin’s testimony
“I am absolutely convinced that we have done nothing wrong.”
This week the prosecution concluded its questioning of Ian Lundin. Lundin was then questioned by the plaintiffs’ attorneys and by his own defense. Thematically, the week and the following Tuesday concerned Ian Lundin’s knowledge of Lundin Oil’s and the Sudanese government’s activities in Sudan during the relevant time period and the consequences of those activities. As in the previous weeks, Lundin was calm throughout the questioning and often stated that he did not recall the answers to the prosecution’s questions. What he did remember was that he had never witnessed any human rights violations. The prosecution painted a picture where the conflict in Block 5A was caused by the oil exploration and by extension the construction of the All-Weather Road. Whether this is true or not, is the question. Lundin stated that he was absolutely convinced that the company had done nothing wrong.
Lundin’s understanding of the conflict in Block 5A
The prosecution asked if Lundin had known that the Nhialdiu area in Block 5A at the time was under the control of Peter Gatdet, a local militia leader, and that he was allied with the rebels against the government, seeing as Lundin had written in a letter that Nhialdiu was Gatdet’s base camp and that the army had fought against him. The question of Lundin’s knowledge of who had control over the area when the Exploration and Production Sharing Agreement (EPSA) was signed was later repeated multiple times by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Thomas Bodström. Lundin seemed to not want to say who he thought had control of the area, and notably did not say that it was under the government’s control. He said that Nhialdiu was a part of Sudan but after multiple back and forths between the two, he also stated that it was his understanding was that the local leaders would keep their self-determination. He did say that he was not personally involved in the negotiations, though. Bodström wondered if this meant that the government had taken action to gain control of the area since the company entered the scene, which Lundin disagreed with.
Prosecutor Karolina Wieslander asked Lundin whether he wondered if the fighting in the area was really due to tribal conflicts as the Lundin defense has alleged (click here), or if it was due to the conflict between Gatdet and the military. Lundin replied that it was a complex situation and that the fighting may have been a mixture of both tribal conflicts and the conflict between Gatdet and the government. He was further asked if what he wrote in the above-mentioned letter about all the other militias in the area having sided with the government against Gatdet had caused him to question his view that this was mainly a question of tribal fighting, to which he replied that Gatdet was hostile towards many different people.
When he was later questioned by Bodström, Lundin stated that during the company’s scouting trips they saw that Block 5A was a peaceful area and they did not expect any issues. Bodström said that the plaintiffs agreed that Block 5A was a peaceful area before Lundin Oil began its operations. When asked later about the plaintiffs’ testimony that Block 5A had been peaceful until Lundin Oil arrived, Lundin responded that he could not comment on the plaintiffs’ depositions.
Attacks on civilians
The prosecution displayed a Christian Aid report from 2000 which alleged that the Sudanese government had attacked a village in Block 5A with helicopter gunships and Antonov planes. In an internal report by Christine Batruch, Lundin Oil AB’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) advisor, it was confirmed that the purpose of the attack may have been to combat the rebels. When asked about his reflections on these allegations, Lundin answered that the fact that the village still exists proves that the government had no intention of destroying it. He further stated that he never saw any signs of these allegations being true.
It was reported that the Nhialdiu area, through which the All-Weather Road was being built, was a strategically important area for the government and the rebels alike and that the government had attempted to take control of the area through “fierce campaigns.” HSE daily reports stated that the rebels retook Nhialdiu and a day later it was reported that the government had retaken Nhialdiu and that gunships had been “extremely active.” Lundin had no recollection of this at all. It was further reported that Peter Gatdet fiercely opposed any road construction in the area. In a special report, Ken Barker, Lundin Oil’s Operations Manager in Sudan, wrote that he did not believe that the government would ever completely control the area despite the current clearing process that was resulting in displacement of large numbers of civilians. Lundin stated that civilians are always displaced by conflict and suggested that while he did not know what the so-called clearing process referred to, it may have been a response to the attacks by rebel leader Peter Paar.
In an email sent by Carl Bildt to Lundin, on which Schneiter was copied, Bildt wrote that the government’s retaking of the territory, which in practice was indiscriminate bombings of civilians, must be condemned. When asked how he viewed the contents of this email, Lundin responded that he thought that Bildt had a very broad view of the situation in the country and that he likely based his assessment on discussions he had had in Washington and Europe, as well as on comments from the UN special rapporteur. He further stated that Bildt’s comments led to company visits to the area and discussions about these allegations. However, he said, the company never had any indication of indiscriminate bombings in Block 5A.
The prosecutor, Henrik Attorps, asked Lundin if he remembered any large army operations in response to an attack by Peter Gatdet and the SPLA on Heglig in 2001 to “clean up the area.” Several hundred troops along with five helicopter gunships participated in this army operation. In a confidential report from early August 2001, “Sudan Block 5A Risk Assessment”, Ken Barker stated that this was a “clean-up operation of some scale and I would not care to comment on the breach of any humanitarian principles that may be involved. It is beyond reasonable doubt that there is some displacement and cleansing going on.” Lundin said that he has no memory of this report. He further stated that he assumed that a clean-up operation implied that the government intended to make sure that the attackers were no longer a threat.
The All-Weather Road
The All-Weather Road to Leer and Nhialdiu was constructed during the Lundin Consortium’s presence in what is now South Sudan and was built to enable travel during both the wet and dry season. The prosecution’s questions regarding the road mainly served to assess the consequences of its construction for the civilian population and whether the company had paid for the road.
According to an Internal Crisis Group (ICG) report from 27 June 2002, the Sudanese government had displaced civilians living in areas where infrastructure such as roads were to be built in order to expand the oil exploration activities. It specifically stated that the government intended to strip a piece of land to extend the All-Weather Road. ECOS also estimated that 160 000 out of 240 000 people had been displaced in Block 5A. Furthermore, the Canadian oil company Talisman’s security personnel reported that government forces had entered Leer following a heavy bombing campaign. When asked about this information, Lundin said that he had not witnessed any forced displacements, only people moving internally because of conflicts that had nothing to do with the company’s activities. For the first time this week, Lundin began to sound annoyed. He was quickly back to his calm self though.
The UN special rapporteur, Leonardo Franco, stated in his report from 19 April 2000 that the oil exploration was the cause of the conflict in Block 5A. A subsequent UN special rapporteur, Gerhard Baum, reaffirmed this view in his oral presentation on 29 March 2001and in his report from 20 August 2002. These conclusions were drawn from separate investigations. When asked if the UN was wrong, Lundin said that Franco never travelled to the area himself, and that Baum picked up misinformation from NGOs and did not take the company’s views into account.
When questioned by his defense, Lundin said that when he flew over the planned route for the All-Weather Road, the landscape was flat and empty, and he did not think that they flew over any villages. He described a scene in which he and the Swedish journalist Bengt Nilsson, who travelled to Block 5A at the company’s invitation, had thought they spotted huts, but when they went to check, their vehicles got stuck in the mud and the huts turned out to be anthills. It is difficult to understand the area unless you have been there, he said. His defense lawyer, Torgny Wetterberg, proceeded to ask him about his impression of the organizations they met in Sudan and their views on the company’s activities. Lundin responded that the World Bank was very positive to their presence and wanted to see the development of oil resources to help the country out of poverty.
To illustrate how the All-Weather Road had caused the forced displacement of civilians, plaintiffs’ council Bodström asked Lundin if the local population was dependent on agriculture for their survival, which Lundin agreed that they were. He said that it was his understanding that the primary reasons for conflict in the area were disputes over cattle for that very reason (click here). Bodström pointed to the satellite analysis provided by the prosecution which showed that around 80% of the farming activities in Block 5A could no longer be seen since the construction of the All-Weather Road to Nhialdiu began. Lundin said that this information had been proven to be incorrect by his defense team (click here). He also said that the reason there was little farming in the area could be because the area was flooded during the wet season and plagued by grassfires in the dry season.
Questions touching on the company’s complicity were contentious. Alexandre Schneiter sent a request for internal approval of the company’s 2002 work program to Lundin where he wrote that Lundin had previously commented on said work program. Lundin said that he did not recall having done so. Three days after the work program was agreed upon, Ken Barker reported that the government demanded that the company finance the All-Weather Road to Nhialdiu in order for them to “provide security.” The prosecution asked Lundin several times why the government would request that the company finance such a road. Lundin did not give a direct answer to the question, instead explaining the government’s motivation for building the road in the first place. It was built, he said, to foster development in the area. The road was necessary for government projects such as building a hospital in Leer.
The prosecution proceeded by displaying tenders that the company had received between November 2001 and September 2002 for the All-Weather Road to the MOK area in Nhialdiu. When asked if he had any knowledge of these tenders, Lundin responded that he had no knowledge of this as they were handled by the local management in Sudan. Upon further questioning, he added that he had no knowledge of the fact that the road to MOK had been included in the company’s budget for security costs. Lundin replied in similar terms when asked about the weekly report by Barker on 20 October 2002, which stated that the addendum for the All-Weather Road was executed, a week after another weekly report stated that they were awaiting Geneva’s response to what was not explicitly stated. Attorps then asked, in a somewhat sarcastic tone, if Lundin had no idea that someone in Geneva might have given this response to Barker. Lundin responded in his same calm tone that Barker had the authority to sign such a contract without the approval of the board and that he perhaps only waited for legal advice from Geneva. When asked about this later by his own attorney, Torgny Wetterberg, he stated that he was not in Geneva around 50% of the time due to extensive travels to the North Sea and Malaysia.
When asked by the plaintiffs’ other attorney, Percy Bratt, why, if Lundin as CEO had the overall responsibility for staff security, he did not take part in the internal reporting on security, Lundin stated that the company had health and safety officers on the ground who ensured the staff’s safety. His responsibility was in an overall capacity.
Asked about a fax sent by Barker concerning the costs for the first 12 km of the All-Weather Road, which were estimated to amount to 800 000 dollars for the company, and why the company had hired a consultant to inspect a road they would not be paying for, Lundin said that these decisions were handled by the local management, but that the company did not pay for the road. He repeated this statement when asked about Barker’s letter to the Ministry of Energy concerning a new agreement in which the company would pay for the All-Weather Road to Mok and to Leer only after it was able to resume the drilling in the area. When asked about a letter sent in his name that stated that the Lundin Consortium had agreed to proceed with the roads to Mok and Leer, he responded in similar terms. He then explained that sometimes people would write letters in his name, that the letter in question was a draft letter, and it was probably never sent. The prosecutor, Wieslander, said that the author of the draft letter was listed as Lundin’s Executive Secretary. When Lundin said that she had been his secretary, but was no longer in that position at the time the letter was written, Wieslander showed documents where she was still listed as his secretary at that time. Wieslander then asked why she would write this letter. Lundin maintained there was no way she could have written the letter.
Inaccurate and biased information
Whether or not the reporting from various NGOs was accurate was a major point of contention. Multiple reports from Christian Aid, UNICEF, ECOS, MSF and others reported the violations that the company had allegedly aided and abetted. Lundin pointed out that these reports used each other as sources and that these NGOs had not in fact visited Block 5A. He also said that Human Rights Watch had its own agenda and used unreliable sources such as the rebels. Bodström pointed out that the ECOS reporting on the subject was very similar to what the UN special rapporteur presented to the UN Commission on Human Rights. Lundin said that he did not believe that reports from NGOs were meant to be used as evidence.
The security agreement
In response to questions about the company’s security agreement with the government, Lundin answered that he wasn’t involved in any discussions and that the matter was handled by the local management. Lundin further stated that the company stressed that a peaceful environment was needed in the area for them to carry out operations and that this peace should be achieved through political measures, not military ones.
When asked by Thomas Bodström how large the guard force the government had provided was, Lundin said that he did not know, but his understanding was that there weren’t many. Bodström pointed to a report by the company’s security officer, Richard Ramsey, which stated that the guard force consisted of two thousand soldiers. According to Bodström, this would make up two or three battalions. Lundin said that he did not see all these soldiers when he travelled down the All-Weather Road, only that there was peace in the area. He further stated that he did not think anyone in the courtroom but him could claim that they had actually seen what the situation around the road was like.
Force majeure
Shortly after a landmine explosion under a company water truck in December 2001, the company invoked the force majeure clause in another contract with another contract party as there were concerns for their staff’s safety. Force majeure is a standard contract provision that releases both parties from their obligations in the event of an extraordinary event that prevents one of the parties from carrying out said duties. When asked why the board didn’t invoke the force majeure clause in the EPSA agreement given the conflict in the area, Lundin said that at the time, suspension of operations and force majeure were very similar. As long as they had an understanding with the government that they could not fulfil their work obligations because of the situation, there was no need to invoke force majeure, as their operations were already suspended.
The ethics of agreements with the regime
Plaintiffs’ council, Percy Bratt, questioned Lundin about the company’s ethical approach to signing contracts with different regimes. Lundin said that they knew there were no sanctions in place by the EU or UN prohibiting a foreign investor in Sudan and that their presence in the country was positive as they were looking for ways to improve the economic situation. The company, among other things, founded an orphanage in the capital, Khartoum. Regarding Bratt’s question if they investigated the regime’s history in regard to human rights violations, Lundin said that they had had a lot of discussions on the topic and that they did everything they could as a small company. When Bratt asked if they were not aware of easily accessible documents from the UN regarding the Sudanese government’s previous human rights violations, Lundin replied that you can’t make decisions based on reading documents, you have to visit the country in question. He added that they talked to a lot of NGOs operating in the country who were very positive towards Sudan at the time.
Thomas Bodström proceeded to ask if, looking back, Lundin regretted anything the company did in Sudan. Lundin said that this was a difficult question to answer but that he thought that the company acted in a very honorable way in a very difficult situation. When asked if he would have done anything differently today if he had the chance, Lundin responded that he did not see what they could have done differently. He thought the company’s presence in the company was very positive for everybody.
Addressing the plaintiffs’ testimony
The plaintiffs’ testimony had been picked apart by the defense teams on multiple occasions where their testimony in court contradicted statements made during their police interviews (click here for examples). Bodström asked Lundin why it was that he had stated numerous times throughout his testimony that it was difficult to remember exactly what had happened. Lundin said that the memory is weaker after a long period of time has passed. Bodström then asked if perhaps the plaintiffs likewise had difficulties remembering everything due to the time that had passed. He further wondered who Lundin thought had the better memory, those with access to protocols and reports or those who lived in these villages. Lundin said that he could not answer that question because the company had a lot of records, but the plaintiffs obviously only had their memories. Bodström agreed with him.
Regarding the topic of memories, it was quite interesting how drastically Lundin’s memory improved when questioned by his defense. He couldn’t recall the answer to only one question, and he remembered who was present at specific meetings and gave detailed responses. This was a notable contrast to the roughly 100 times he stated that he could not remember in response to the prosecution and the plaintiff’s attorneys’ questions. He also recalled quite the number of positive community projects the company had engaged in during their time in Sudan, though he had a good memory of these projects throughout the week. At the same time, though, given that his defense team likely prepared him to testify, his improved ability to recall details was not that surprising,
Lundin was also questioned by Bodström about his lawyers’ statement that they wanted 500 000 Swedish crowns in security from the plaintiffs, who have no means of paying this sum. Lundin responded that in light of the length of the process, the millions it has cost the company and the Swedish state, and his personal suffering for 15 years, he felt that this sum was too low. He was absolutely convinced, he said, that the company had not done anything wrong.
Next report
Our next report will cover the testimony of Alexandre Schneiter.
