Report 49 – The testimony of Petter Bolme 

This report, covering the second week of witnesses, covers the hearing of Petter Bolme, a journalist with Global Idé. He testified in the trial about his role in launching the Unpaid Debt report with PAX and ECOS, his direct contact with several plaintiffs detailing the threats they faced for speaking out, and his role in documenting and reporting this to the authorities. Petter Bolme began his testimony by raising a significant concern: threats had been made against individuals involved in the case. He emphasized that if any question posed during his testimony could potentially endanger someone’s life or health, he would need a pause to be able to have a careful discussion on how to proceed before answering. That was a central theme of his testimony: the importance of protecting lives throughout the process of seeking reparations for the crimes that were committed in Sudan. During the questioning, he also highlighted how his mission was to help people share their stories and ensure that those affected were informed and heard. His testimony offered insight into the work of the plaintiffs and those who supported them in their fight for reparations, while also highlighting the significant risks faced by the plaintiffs involved in the case. 

Background and professional experience 

The prosecutor started by asking Bolme about his educational and professional background. Bolme described how he has a background as a journalist with experience from Latin America and has had assignments for, among others, the Toronto Star and SVT. He described working in media since 1988 and moving to Mexico where he began working for a Canadian news agency covering news in Latin America. He later took on an assignment for SVT and after returning to Sweden, he has worked for Global Reporting since 1999, primarily with consulting assignments rather than traditional journalism.  

Bolme’s connection with PAX and this case began in 2008. He came into contact with Egbert Wesselink from PAX through his work with Swedwatch, where he investigated corporate mining practices in Zambia. This work focused on human rights violations linked to Swedish corporations operating in Zambia, especially the controversial issues surrounding cobalt extraction. Wesselink, having learned of Bolme through Swedwatch, approached him for support with the launch of the Unpaid Debt report. Bolme’s tasks included organizing event locations, contacting processing organizations, developing a strategy, reaching out to media, and participating in the launch conference. Bolme then detailed his involvement with ECOS, explaining that ECOS’s mission was to investigate and raise awareness about the link between oil extraction and the escalating violence in the region, particularly focusing on the human cost of these activities. 

Unpaid Debt and its launch  

Bolme further detailed the complications that arose during the planning for the report’s launch in October 2008. The launch was abruptly canceled after the team was informed that they could be sued for defamation by Lundin Oil. However, in 2009, work resumed, now in cooperation with the Christian Peace Movement, and the report was launched despite a lack of media attention — which Bolme explained was partly because the launch coincided with the Swedish crown princess’s wedding. After the publication of the report, he learned that a police report had been filed in Sweden and when a journalist named Bengt Nilsson emailed him about images related to child soldiers that could be used by the media, he forwarded those the prosecutor. After that, even though he could not continue working in Sudan, he continued to work closely with Christian Peace on writing newsletters and raising awareness, though he emphasized that this was not journalism—his role was strictly advocacy. The last newsletter was written in 2009. 

Witness advocacy and outreach 

Bolme continued by describing how he was planning to return to South Sudan in 2013 but, as the civil war broke out that year, his plans to travel were changed and he instead relocated to Tanzania. He was still actively involved in efforts to help Swedish authorities connect with witnesses from the region and was first interrogated by the police then. Additionally, as the civil war started, Bolme explained that he realized that the police would have difficulty finding and interviewing the witnesses and therefore though that they could help Swedish authorities with this process. Therefore, he traveled to Nairobi in 2014 to meet with members of the Sudanese diaspora. He also reached out to Egbert Wesselink to discuss how they could help Swedish authorities in identifying witnesses and gathering testimonies. Bolme then delegated assignments to others in the network, including local chiefs, to gather names, contact information, and some background details about potential witnesses. PAX signed contracts with some people in the network.  Bolme also explained that the task was to tell people what had happened and to create a contrast to the company’s narrative. The focus was on presenting people’s own stories – how they themselves described their experiences. Their goal was to push for compensation and reshape the narrative presented by oil companies, who had framed the conflict as merely civil war. In 2016, he returned to Juba to revisit people, this time focusing on women’s stories. Bolme explained that women’s voices were crucial in telling the story of the atrocities committed in Sudan.  

Ongoing work and interactions with key figures 

When asked about his contact with plaintiffs, Bolme talked about how he had more contact with Andrew Jagei, a plaintiff in the trial and a former child soldier who later worked for Lundin. He learned through Andrew that Lundin had begun contacting people who had worked for them and Andrew shared information with Bolme about these interactions. In June 2002, Andrew disclosed via Facebook Messenger that the situation was escalating, with threats becoming increasingly severe. After his neighbor was killed, he was afraid that he himself would be next and was the real target. Therefore, Andrew felt compelled to flee to Uganda, where Assistance Mission for Africa (AMA) helped him with money for the trip, accommodation, and with contacts. During that time, steps were taken to document Andrew Jagei’s experiences and in August 2017, a complaint was submitted to Swedish law enforcement.  The threats he faced extended beyond his own struggles, with former colleagues also reporting having been subjected to similar situations.   

Bolme was also questioned about his contacts and meetings with potential witnesses. In May 2016, Bolme met with men from Unity State at a PAX-coordinated meeting in Juba, which followed a larger gathering in Nairobi. He noted that the meetings were led by individuals who spoke Nuer, allowing participants to share their stories and address their pain. Smaller meetings took place in Uganda in 2018 and Juba in 2019, followed by additional meetings in 2020 and 2021, though none occurred during the COVID pandemic. The purpose of these meetings, Bolme explained, was to provide information about the preliminary investigation being carried out by Swedish investigators, the indictment, and the legal process. Attendees were reminded to avoid discussing their planned testimony with one another and were informed about their rights within the Swedish legal system. When asked whether they were promised compensation, Bolme clarified that while compensation is referenced in the UN guidelines, attendees were explicitly told that this process did not offer financial compensation. Bolme acknowledged that among the attendees, there was an “expectation of justice,” which for them was often more significant than the legal process itself. He emphasized that sharing their stories was a form of justice in itself, allowing the world to recognize their experiences. Bolme’s role at these meetings was primarily to participate, answer questions, and explain Sweden’s legal system, rather than to document or record the attendees’ statements. 

When asked how those he met became involved in this case, Bolme explained that threats against those he met were regularly documented and forwarded to the Swedish police in real-time, allowing the police to hear these individuals during the preliminary investigation. He felt a responsibility to protect the people involved, extending beyond his communications role. Although he did not personally interview the witnesses, he compiled their names, contact details, locations, and an overview of the threats they experienced.  Once the lists of names were gathered, additional threats began to emerge. As the threats escalated, Bolme continued to forward information to the Swedish police in real-time, including screenshots, text messages, and sometimes images of injuries. This process ultimately led to these individuals being heard in the investigation.   

Regarding Moses’s assignment, which also was discussed during Egbert Wesselink’s testimony, Bolme explained that Moses was instructed to identify affected individuals by focusing on large refugee groups in Kenya, gathering names, contact information, locations, and basic details about their experiences from 1997–2003. Moses was specifically directed to avoid journalistic work and compiled the data in an Excel sheet. While Bolme did not assist Moses directly, he later provided information to PAX and joined a meeting with Swedish police in Nairobi in February 2015 alongside Wesselink and Moses.   

When asked about Leech Victim Voices, Bolme described it as a network rather than a formal organization. He explained that affected individuals wanted a platform to speak collectively to embassies and other entities, and while no lawyers were involved, the group’s meetings allowed them to express their demands. They also created a closed Facebook group to share knowledge and updates about the case in Sweden. 

The Defense Cross Examination  

The defense attorney, Olle Rainer, representing Alexandre Schneiter, began his cross-examination of Petter Bolme by asking about ECOS’s early contacts with the South Sudan Council of Churches (SCC). Rainer asked about these interactions, noting that Bolme himself had no contact with Sudan during the early years. Bolme explained that between 2008 and 2010, he did not have connections with Sudanese individuals but met Pastor James Ninrew and others in 2010, when the Unpaid Debt report was published.  

Leech Victim Voices and network 

The defense pressed on, asking about the nature of the meetings that Bolme had participated in during his work. Bolme described these meetings as open fora where South Sudanese participants shared experiences and updated each other on their situations. There were no clear leaders in these gatherings. The defense singled out the Leech Victim Voices group, which was formed in 2016 by individuals from Unity State who had been directly affected by the conflict. Bolme again described this group as informal, emphasizing that while priests acted as natural leaders, there was no official structure or hierarchy. The group’s main focus was on surviving the civil war in South Sudan rather than organizing for any legal processes in Sweden. Bolme explained that he had built a network through social media, particularly via a Facebook group, where those affected could access information about the indictment, legal proceedings, and media coverage. He noted that members were instructed not to post unrelated content about other conflicts or issues.  Bolme also noted that while several victims contributed to Leech Victims Voices, not all of them participated in the Facebook group, and he acknowledged the tragic reality that some members, including a commissioner, were later killed. These questions reflected the defense’s earlier criticism of the group as being a “suspicious” entity, suggesting that the victims had been identified by civil society organizations rather than by the police.  

When questioned about compensation, Bolme explained that while he informed people about the possibility of compensation under Swedish law, it was not a primary topic of discussion during his interactions. He added that affected individuals had not asked him for compensation, and for them restitution often meant more than just financial redress. The defense pressed further, asking whether Bolme had ever stated that there was a possibility of them receiving compensation. Bolme confirmed that he had, explaining that Swedish law provides for compensation for victims. However, he stressed that this applies to a large group of victims. When asked if he had observed expectations of compensation among those he met, Bolme said he could not recall such expectations ever being raised. 

The defense shifted focus to an audio clip from an interview with Bolme that had not been previously presented as evidence. The clip came from a podcast series, Risktagarna, published in 2023, in which Bolme was interviewed about the case. In the podcast, Bolme described the local population’s difficulty in understanding the Swedish legal process and his efforts to temper hopes for financial compensation. In the podcase, he stated, “Just the hope that it could happen can create conflicts. So, we want to reduce the risk that something happens because of a trial in Sweden.” Asked about this by the defense, Bolme confirmed that he had said it and stood by his statement. He did not seem to view it as conflicting with anything he had said in his testimony. 

Knowledge of investigation and interaction with police and prosecutors  

The defense shifted to whether Bolme had filed a report with Swedish police. Bolme explained that he learned about the preliminary investigation through an article in Polistidningen. He was initially unaware of ECOS’s involvement but later learned that ECOS had been contacted. The defense presented an email Bolme had sent to prosecutors in which he recommended individuals who were experts on South Sudan or the conflict, or who he thought were relevant to the case. Bolme confirmed that he had sent the email, noting that anyone can submit evidence to the investigation. He described his contributions as voluntary work that became more active over time.  

The questioning turned to the meetings with police investigators. Bolme recalled his first police interrogation in 2011, followed by a satellite conference in 2015. When questioned about Moses’s lists, Bolme described how the police received the lists, thanked him, and accepted them. The defense showed an email stating that the police’s purpose for the meeting was to gather help in finding witnesses from Unity State. Bolme confirmed this interpretation, stating that he had compiled lists, many lists, including one about obstruction of justice with incidents. He reiterated that while the police thanked them for the lists, he could not say definitively what their stance was or if they used the lists. 

Contact with plaintiffs and with former Lundin employees 

The cross-examination moved on to Bolme’s interactions with plaintiffs. Bolme started by describing his work as a straightforward effort to help people share their stories. Given the ongoing civil war, Bolme felt a personal responsibility to ensure that affected individuals were informed about the investigation. The defense asked about Bolme’s direct contact with James Ninrew between 2014 and 2016. Bolme stated that their interactions were unrelated to trial matters or lists, and when asked whether James Ninrew had ever created lists for investigators, Bolme could not recall having forwarded such information to the investigation team. The defense shifted to another complainant, Andrew Jagei. When asked whether Andrew Jagei assisted in gathering information for the investigation, Bolme stated that it was a possibility but was unsure of the details. He explained that he might have used Jagei as asource of information about the conflict and about how Lundin Oil worked, but did not know if that information had been forwarded. The defense questioned Bolme about other complainants, including former Lundin employees. Bolme explained that Jagei referred other individuals to Bolme, who then passed on the information to investigators. Bolme confirmed that he remains in contact with Andrew and that his involvement was limited to offering connections and support, not direct involvement.   

Incident lists  

The defense inquired further about threat incident lists provided by Bolme to the Swedish authorities. These lists were chronological, featuring incident descriptions, screenshots, and varying levels of detail. Some entries were related to complainants, while others were not. Bolme explained that the descriptions ranged from brief summaries to half-page entries, with consistent details and supporting evidence included. The defense raised the apparent contradiction between the police’s directive to collect only names, times, and places of incidents versus the detailed information in the lists. The defense argued that interviewing individuals about their experiences would diminish the value of their testimonies and emphasized that it appeared to be the victims themselves who had organized to demand justice and compensation—not the Swedish police.  Bolme acknowledged the discrepancy, explaining that he was upset that people were being prevented from testifying and believed it was important to collect information about potential obstruction of justice. He emphasized the importance of providing comprehensive details to address the issues and that it was crucial to describe everything as thoroughly as possible.  

Bolme recounted a conversation with the preliminary investigation leader and prosecutor Magnus Elving, who stated “their [the witnesses’] lives were more important than their evidentiary value as witnesses.”  Bolme clarified that collecting detailed information often served to save lives, whether or not the process strictly followed investigatory guidelines. This approach prioritized the safety and survival of individuals over maintaining the integrity of the legal process. 

The defense then questioned the appropriateness of allowing victims to share their stories on film and pointed out that this could have negatively affected the legal process. Bolme clarified that none of the individuals involved were official witnesses or plaintiffs at the time of recording, though some later became so. He saw the films as a way to influence public opinion and amplify the voices of those involved, though this led to threats against them. He added that at the time, they did not know what the status of the case was and did not think they would ever become part of an investigation. 

The conversation then shifted to Moses, who had been hired as a consultant by PAX to identify witnesses and submit names to the investigation during the civil war. Bolme described Moses’s instructions as being solely to gather contact details, not to conduct interviews. The defense then focused on Moses’s background, noting that he had been a journalist in South Sudan at the time Bolme first contacted him in 2012. The defense brough up that Moses was at one point cited as a military spokesperson for SPLA-IO in a Reuters article from Bentiu and questioned whether Moses had ever fought for SPLA. Bolme stated he was not aware of this, prompting the defense to display an image from Moses’s Facebook page from Martyrs’ Day, where Moses described remembering the day he joined the Red Army, a youth division during the civil war.  Petter Bolme responded that Moses may have talked about this, but he was not sure. When the defense showed him another Facebook post from 2020, where Moses wrote that he was a former “SPLA soldier” Bolme responded that he did not consider this to make him unsuitable for his role in gathering testimonies. When asked whether Bolme had control over Moses’s material during his work, Bolme admitted he did not have oversight and no way to verify what Moses said. However, he emphasized that the purpose of the forms was to facilitate contact and gather claims, and that they were handed over to PAX. 

Collaboration with victims’ counsel 

The defense then questioned Bolme regarding whether ECOS or PAX had collaborated with the plaintiffs’ counsel regarding lists of potential witnesses. The defense presented an email from August 2017 in which Percy Bratt informed prosecutor Magnus Elving that he had received a list from Bolme and Wesselink and was now in direct contact with them. The list included several individuals later heard in the trial. When asked whether he had provided these lists to Percy Bratt, Bolme confirmed this and explained that the detailed nature of the lists was due to new information about what the individuals had experienced, particularly as the threats against them increased. While he could not recall specifics, he believed this information had been gathered to provide more comprehensive details.  

Andrew Jagei and the $5000 note  

The cross-examination continued with the defense attorney Per E. Samuelson, representing Alexandre Schneiter, taking over and presenting a handwritten note showing that radio operator Andrew Jagei had offered to testify in Lundin’s favor in exchange for $5000. Samuelson argued that this proved Jagei had attempted to negotiate his testimony. Bolme recalled that Jagei had told him about the note and had taken a picture of it, though Bolme had never seen the original. Bolme said that he saw it as an act of desperation from someone who was extremely vulnerable and that he saw it more like Jagei playing a “game.”  When asked whether this affected Jagei’s credibility, Bolme acknowledged it was a reckless action but reiterated that it did not impact how material was gathered.  

Police involvement and refugee status  

The questioning concluded with the defense asking about the Swedish police’s assistance to witnesses who had been threatened. Bolme described how Swedish police had sent letters to UNHCR regarding individuals with refugee status in Uganda, facilitating requests for urgent refugee status in various countries. Bolme confirmed that such letters helped individuals gain refugee status but said that he had not seen the contents of the letters themselves. Bolme explained that the police are responsible for protecting witnesses, while organizations like UNHCR handle refugee matters. He speculated that the letters sought to address urgent refugee cases. This concluded the defense’s questioning 

Redirect by the prosecution 

During the redirect, the prosecution focused on the audio clip from the podcast presented by the defense, asking about its subject matter and its relevance to the case. Bolme explained that the clip with his statement centered around compensation for a large group of individuals, highlighting the complexities involved in distributing and sharing funds and the potential for conflicts arising from uncertainty. He stressed the importance of not contributing further to these tensions. 

The prosecutor then inquired about the role of hopes and expectations, asking whether efforts were made to proactively reduce individuals’ expectations of compensation and whether any such expectations had been expressed by those involved. Bolme clarified that expectations often built up over time; however, he always emphasized to those he spoke with that securing compensation for individuals would be extremely difficult, and added that they had not discussed this topic much. Bolme explained that those involved as potential witnesses had not voiced such expectations and that his efforts to manage any expectations were made preemptively. The prosecution finished their redirect and Petter Bolme’s testimony ended.  

Next week 

In our report next week, we will cover the testimony of Carl Söderbergh and Johan Brosché.