Report 66 — David Johnson
David Johnson was a contractor for Lundin Oil who was involved in the construction of many roads in Block 5A between 1999-2003. During his testimony, he firmly maintained that his role was simply to deal with and manage contracts and tenders for road construction and that he had no input or involvement in security questions. The court heard that along the roads he mapped out and constructed, of which there were many, he never saw any settlements, burned or otherwise. Instead, he claimed that the roads were utilized by the civilians and that he never heard them express dissatisfaction or negativity about them. Johnson maintained that he did not hear about displacement or violence against civilians by the Sudanese military.
The testimony of David Johnson
David Johnson was the field construction supervisor for Weeks UK Ltd., contracted by Lundin Oil to plan and supervise the road construction in Block 5A during 1999-2003. He was later employed by John Smith Projects Ltd. and contracted to work on road construction for Sudan Ltd. between 2003-2005. He was called as a witness because of his involvement in the construction of the all-weather road to Thar Jath. This road has been a main topic in this trial because of the prosecution alleges that its construction led to the displacement and destruction of civilians and villages.
Annika Wennerström commenced the examination in chief by asking about Johnson’s background and role between 1999 and 2003. His role at Weeks Ltd. was to draft and manage tenders and contracts, which was what he did for Lundin Oil. When Petronas took over Lundin, he became the construction superintendent for them, while still retaining his job in the UK. Johnson moved to a different company, John Smith Projects Ltd., because of financial reasons, he told the court.
While contracted to work for Lundin Oil, Johnson worked with another colleague, Matthew Row, as well as his boss, Phil Weeks, on the Sudan project. He said he and Row relieved each other in the field while the other one was stationed in Khartoum, but he could not recall how many times he went to work in the field. While he initially did not know much about the security situation or the ongoing conflicts in the area, he said that he found out at some stage. He believed it was first the security team in Rubkhona who briefed him on the general situation, but he said he knew little about it when he arrived in Khartoum. The briefing informed him that there was a problem between the north and south of Sudan and that there was fighting between the two, as well as between the various militias. He recounted that the security measures he was to follow during field trips included keeping his radio on him at all times and maintaining regular contact with the base camp. In Khartoum, they could move freely. The security people he encountered were John Glendenning, Richard Ramsey and a third man whose name he could not remember.
In the Khartoum office, he remembered Ted Nesbeth who reported to Ken Barker and Tim Sarney. Johnson testified that he did not have much of a relationship with Sarney, rather that it was someone he spoke to about work and current situations. Judge Zander asked him to clarify who he reported to and he said it was to Barker but not to Nesbeth. “I did my work, and he did his.” He also reported to his boss back in the UK.
Johnson’s first task in Khartoum was to draft contracts that would be issued to various contactors so that they provide a price estimate for the construction of the all-weather road from Rubkhona to Thar Jath. Phil Weeks wrote a status report regarding ongoing construction work on 25 October 1999 which asserted that a field trip was to have taken place a few days prior but that it could not be completed because of security issues. However, Johnson could not remember the field trip, nor could he expand on the situation. When asked whether he took part in discussions regarding the security situation, with the prosecution pointing to the fact that he was listed on the list of those who received security updates, Johnson said he could not remember and that it was likely he only focused on the information regarding contractual issues. He said this while asking the prosecutor to scroll up in the document. This particular contract he believed was for the purchase of gravel to be delivered to Rubkhona rather than the actual road.
Petroleum Security was part of the security arrangement for the Lundin operations. Johnson had heard about them from security personnel, but he did not say in what context he had heard about them. Because of his role, he did not deal with them. The prosecutor asked him if he had seen personnel from Petsec, to which he responded “I believe so, I was told they were Petroleum Security. In the area we work it’s difficult to know who works where.” He expanded on his answer by telling the court that there were a lot of people in military uniform, “but you didn’t know if they were from the army, north or south, SPLA etc.” He saw people in uniform in Rubkhona, crossing the bridge over Bahr el Ghazal as well as along the all-weather road. “They were mostly sitting around,” he said.
He stayed in Sudan for three or four weeks the first time he went for work. The next time he went to Sudan was to relieve Matthew Row. At that time, Row had been on site for seven weeks and needed a break. Johnson was there for three to four weeks. His task during this period was to plot out the route of the all-weather road. He told the court that his job was to walk the route to map it out and the machinery would follow closely behind. Lundin had briefed him on the general security situation in the area.
Point A, where the road would begin, was where the existing road ended by the Bahr el Ghazal River and point B would be the rig site at Thar Jath. “We used GPS coordinates,” he explained. The road would be a total of 90 kilometers long. It all took a couple of days to ”clear” the path of the road. Army soldiers drove ahead in vehicles, far enough ahead that Johnson or the crew could not see them. They were present for security because of the ongoing fighting between militias in the area. The prosecution asked Johnson what they would do if there were settlements in the way of the planned route. He explained that the reason for him walking ahead of the machinery was so that they could re-route the path should there be anything in the way. Johnson maintained that he saw civilians sometimes, but he was not sure if they were from the area. He was certain that there had not been any buildings in or along the route at the time, telling the court that maps would show that the road was not straight because it was rerouted by 7 km to avoid Bentiu. He said that this would not have affected the implementation of the contract. Johnson described an SPLA attack against the road construction crew that took place south of Bentiu. He had been at lunch back at base camp when the attack occurred, but he saw wounded people being carried back over Bahr el Ghazal back to Rubkhona for medical attention. The prosecution sought to establish exactly when this occurred and found a diary of significant events which suggested that the attack on the Heglig construction crew occurred on 29 February 2000. A day prior, Block 5A had entered Code black and the company evacuated staff due to clashes between the army and militia south of Rubkhona. Johnson could not recall that event, saying that he would have been told about it but could not now remember.
After the attack on the Heglig construction crew, Johnson worked at the Khartoum office with Ken Barker as the general manager. Because of the attack against the construction crew, Johnson advised Lundin Oil that they should consider looking into how to cancel or suspend the all-weather road contract to not risk further costs. The contract contained a clause which would allow a party to suspend or cancel the contract due to extenuating circumstances. Johnson was also asked to review other options for costing and constructing projects in the area. The prosecution showed the court a document, dated 25 July 2000, suggesting that it asserted that the contract had been assigned to the government in February of that year. Ian Lundin’s defense team interjected, saying that this was not a fact, but rather that the document was a draft and “expressly” stated that it substituted contracts from 29 February 2000. They argued it would be “unreasonable” to claim the contract had been handed over to the government at that time. Johnson told the court that it was eventually assigned to the government and that the road was completed under that re-assignment.
His next visit to Sudan was in November of that year to check that the road had been completed as prescribed. During this trip he worked on potential contracts for road projects, including proposed roads to MOK, Jarayang, Leer, and Malakal, and conducted the inspection of the road on 15 December 2000. Ken Barker would provide him with the specific areas in which they wanted a road, and he would be tasked with drafting a contract for their construction. The process would then require the parties involved to sign it and proceed. The contracts he drafted were based on the original contract for the all-weather road to Rubkhona, and he explained that they would just change distance, route and price. He recalled that Heglig Construction Company won all tenders for the road construction. At this time, Johnson was no longer with Weeks Ltd. but had moved on to John Smith Projects Ltd. and he told the court that Lundin had decided to contract John Smith Projects so they could keep him onboard. He worked together with Robert Archer on these projects. Johnson was asked by the prosecutor what he knew of the road between MOK to Nhaldiu that was mentioned in Robert Archer’s interview with Hogan Lovells attorneys in November 2001. He responded that it was likely he had been involved but could not remember much other than that it was constructed and that it was “maybe Heglig [construction company]” who won the tender. He also told the court that he did not believe he had any influence on the route of that road and that he did not remember anything about the split of cost between the government and Lundin Oil.
The security on his trip was much like before: PetSec security would go in vehicles in front of them and he would go in one of Lundin Oil’s vehicles. He was not involved in any security arrangements. Johnson said the trip took them a few days and it was in “the middle of nowhere.” He described it as a flat area where one would occasionally see grass and trees. He maintained that there were no traces of settlements along the road.
Johnson did not recall being involved in the construction or inspection of the roads to Mala, Jarayang, Leer or MOK, other than being involved in the contracts. However, the prosecution presented a document suggesting he did inspect the road between Leer and Jarayang. Johnson responded that he travelled on the road between Leer and Adok later during his time at Petronas.
Ian Lundin’s defense team was first to cross-examine Johnson. Torgny Wetterberg proceeded to establish a clear timeline of Johnson’s time in Sudan between 1999-2005. He reaffirmed that he was employed by Weeks between 1999-2003, at which point he was contracted to Lundin Oil. He told the court that from 2003-2005 he was employed by John Smith Projects and contracted to Petronas, although he could not provide any exact dates as to when he changed employers. The all-weather road to Rubkhona had not moved much further than Bahr el Ghazal by the time he first arrived. The area south of the river was “empty.” He said Bentiu was visible to the right, which was one of the reasons why the road went east and then south. When asked to describe the area further, Johnson compared it to the New Forest area in the UK: “if you make that area flat.” He told the court that the area would flood during the wet season.
The locals they met were friendly, but Johnson said the overall vibe of the area was neutral as far as he knew, again maintaining that he was not involved in security in any way. He testified that the protection detail in the area was government troops of a total of 20 soldiers.
Wetterberg then focused on the attack against the Heglig crew, asking Johnson his opinion on the motive behind the attack. Prefacing his answer with “I don’t know why,” he told the court he “assumed” it was the southern SPLA or SPLM that attacked the crew. Wetterberg raised that Johnson had answered the question differently in his police interview, but Johnson simply stated that whatever he said previously was his impression at the time. Johnson maintained his previous answers regarding settlements along the road and said that he had never felt that traveling along the road was a security problem. A lot of civilians were “walking up and down the road, or they utilized the dump trucks for transportation.” Wetterberg asked if he remembered a bus service going along the road. He said he remembered seeing one going from Khartoum to Adok during his time at Petronas. However, Wetterberg suggested that he may have seen it earlier than that, referring to Johnson’s police interview, but did not specify exactly when.
The questions moved towards Johnson’s time at Petronas. He was then the construction superintendent and based in the Rubkhona base camp. At the rig site, he moved between temporary and permanent accommodation. He could not recall how many road projects he was involved with but said there were 21 wells that required access points. As superintendent, he was responsible for the construction of roads, and he testified that they would get coordinates from Khartoum showing where the rig was located to the area in which they wanted to drill next. He would then mark and walk the route. All roads were within Block 5A and because it was an area not under government control, Johnson said he kept in contact with the rebel commanders when entering their areas. He maintained that the roads were a positive thing for the local population and that he did not hear about displacement or violence against civilians. No civilians expressed dissatisfaction or negativity regarding the road construction.
Neither Alexandre Schneiter’s defense team nor the plaintiffs’ attorneys chose to cross-examine Johnson.
