Report 64 — Philip Ward and Daoud Gideon
The week of 22 September 2025 was a short week in the trial as the court heard from only two witnesses: Philip Ward and Daoud Gideon. Ward worked as a contracts coordinator in Lundin Oil’s Khartoum office and testified about his experiences there, while the focus of Daoud Gideon’s testimony was his work with ECOS and PAX assessing the impact of the oil industry on communities in South Sudan.
The testimony of Philip Ward
On 24 September 2025, the court heard testimony from Philip Ward, a former contracts coordinator at Lundin Oil. Ward worked for the company in Sudan from September 2001 to 2003. He was based in Khartoum throughout his tenure and only visited Block 5A later while working for Petronas. Before arriving in Sudan, Ward said he knew very little about the country or its civil war. When Lundin Oil sold its Sudan operations to Petronas in 2003, Ward stayed until 2005 to assist in the transfer of contracts and documents. Ward stated that he had no contact with Lundin Oil for years until recently in August when he received an email from Orrön Energy, which he did not answer.
Ken Barker, Lundin Oil’s country manager, recruited Ward through a phone interview and hired him as a contract coordinator. Ward’s role mainly involved drafting and reviewing contracts and monitoring compliance by subcontractors. In 2002, the workforce was reduced, with several layoffs in drilling and seismic operations. Before the cuts, there were about 7–8 expatriates and 8–10 local staff. Afterward, only four expatriates remained, including Ward, Tim Sarney, and Ken Barker, along with approximately seven local employees, including Dr. Alan Bai. Around the same time, Ward took over as administrative manager. Although Robert Archer’s later statements suggested Ward had a larger role in procurement and payment supervision, Ward categorically denied this.
A central topic of the prosecution’s examination was the construction of roads, especially the Nhialdu /MOK and Jarayan/Leer roads in Block 5A. Ward had limited recollection about the details of Heglig Petroleum and although he remembered a road construction dispute with a local company, possibly Heglig Construction, he could not remember the outcome. He confirmed that he drafted a contract later finalized by others, including a rare arrangement where the government contracted a third party and Lundin covered the costs. According to a document shown by the prosecution, Ward reportedly told Archer that the road to Mok wasn’t officially approved by Lundin, but Heglig proceeded with construction on orders from the Sudanese government. Ward, however, did not recall this.
On a day-to-day basis, Ward reported to Ken Barker and occasionally to Tim Sarney, Barker’s deputy, as well as to the legal staff in Geneva. In Khartoum, Barker led the weekly staff meetings which covered safety, planning, and operations. Monthly reports were sent to Geneva. Ward did not know exactly who in Geneva received these reports
but believed Alexandre Schneiter and legal staff were among the recipients. Ward explained that all draft tenders or agreements had to be reviewed by Geneva before being approved. The lawyers would comment on the drafts and Barker would then approve them. Ward testified that he believed that Barker could approve agreements to a certain extent but could not recall whether he had the authority to approve final drafts or if he needed further approval from higher up. Ward sometimes prepared letters on Barker’s behalf with his consent, which Barker later signed. However, Ward did not have the authority to approve or sign contracts or payments himself.
When asked about tender boards or internal review committees, Ward said he assumed such bodies existed at HQ but did not know who was on them. He speculated they likely included legal and financial staff and possibly Schneiter.
Ward confirmed that Ian Lundin and Alexandre Schneiter visited Khartoum a few times, estimating that they made about three to four visits during Ward’s time there. Their visits were related to meetings, but Ward stated he was never directly involved in these high-level discussions.
There was unrest at the work site around Christmas 2001, which disrupted operations. Shortly after, Ward recalled seeing Ian Lundin briefly at a small New Year’s gathering in Khartoum. Although Ward was not officially involved in the visit and did not know the reasons for it, he later heard from Dr. Alan Bagi that Lundin’s meetings with Barker and Sudanese officials had gone well and that operations would restart. However, he did not know what the meetings were about.
During cross-examination, Alexandre Schneiter’s defence attorneys displayed an organisational chart that showed Schneiter and Barker at the same management level. Ward said he had not seen the chart before but assumed it was accurate. However, the chart did not change his understanding that Barker reported to Schneiter in practice.
Surprisingly, there were no questions from the defence of Ian Lundin.
The Testimony of Daoud Gideon
On 25 September 2025, the court heard testimony from Daoud Gideon, a statistician who performed an assessment in 2009 in Block 5A to document oil-related damage and human rights harms from 1997–2003.
Daoud Gideon was born in a village in what was then southern Sudan. He speaks Arabic, English and Moro fluently. In 2009, Gideon conducted field research in Block 5A as part of an assessment commissioned by ECOS. Gideon’s team was led by Peter Ackim. Gideon stated that he and Ackim were not members of SPLA or SPLM, but he was unsure about the affiliation of others.
The team operated with local permission from county authorities and interviewed about 30 chiefs at the payam level in Leer, Koch and Gwuit. However, it was not possible to
carry out interviews in Paryam. They began with identifying the chiefs and verifying whether they had been present in the area between 1997 and 2003 to ensure they could provide firsthand accounts. The purpose of the assessment was to develop a report that could be used for victims to possible receive compensation under the provisions of the 2005 peace agreement. Gideon stressed that the team did not promise the victims compensation, but only informed chiefs about the peace agreement.
The assessment gathered first‑hand information on forced displacements, killings, missing persons, abductions, destroyed schools and health facilities, burned churches, and stolen cattle. The chiefs reported that villagers had been killed in different ways, including militia attacks, aerial strikes, and shelling. The perpetrators of these attacks were often described as militia forces and Peter Gadet was repeatedly mentioned. According to the chiefs interviewed, civilians were targeted because of oil interests. The goal was to remove local populations to enable uninterrupted oil exploration and exploitation, as their presence was seen as a potential obstacle to these operations.
The assessment material was developed by Ackim. It included a structured questionnaire designed to guide the team during interviews with local chiefs. Chiefs generally provided information directly, but a few had secretaries assisting them. Sometimes the team used the Revered James Ninrew as an interpreter. Gideon stated that he was unaware of the reverend’s subsequent status as a plaintiff. The current case had not been initiated at the time. Responses were documented through written notes and, when permitted, audio recordings. The collected data was later organized into county-based tables, listing names, ages, genders, and the circumstances surrounding each reported event.
Gideon was asked whether the documents shown in court were produced by his team. He acknowledged that the format looked familiar and matched the type of data they had collected. He recalled that the tables they created were clearly organized by county: Leer, Koch and Gwuit/Gier, and that specific format was definitely theirs. However, he admitted that he couldn’t confirm every detail due to the time that had passed. His statements in court were consistent with what he told police earlier, where he had recognized some sections (pages 33–60) but not others (pages 27–32).
In 2009 Gideon encountered Andrew Jagei, a mining company employee and acquaintance of Ackim, at a restaurant in Rubkhona, though he did not conduct an interview with him.
In 2016, while working for Pax, Gideon met several individuals described as “affected,” including Steven Gawar, Mathew Mattiang, and several others. These meetings took place in Nairobi and Uganda, where Daoud assisted with transport. The gatherings focused on challenges these individuals faced, and included discussions related to the Lundin Oil case. He testified that representatives from Pax and ECOS were present, specifically Egbert Wesselink and Petter Bolme.
Following the conclusion of the day’s witness testimony, the Orrön Energy defense asked to give a supplementary statement. The supplementary statement focused on one of the plaintiffs in the trial, Reveremd James Ninrew Dong and the role of ECOS and PAX. It was added because a key witness was removed, and all plaintiffs have now been heard, which allowed for a more complete review of the case. The company’s statement alleged that Ninrew worked closely with Derek Hammond during the time of the case, including sharing information, traveling together, and co-founding a company called Nile Group of Companies Limited, which had a broad business focus. They also stayed in contact throughout the investigation and the trial, maintaining both personal and professional connections. The statement also addressed ECOS’s influence, explaining that Ninrew helped collect witnesses and introduced many of them, with 25 of the complainants connected through him and his contacts. The defense highlighted the central role Ninrew played in supporting the investigation and coordinating the involvement of witnesses, and they supported their arguments by showing an email thread as evidence.
Suspension of the hearing
At one point during the hearing, during an exchange between Judge Zander and Alexandre Schneiter’s attorney Per Samuelsson, Judge Zander asked Samuelsson if he had anything to add. The lawyer said he did not – but then asked if the judge was irritated with him. The judge said he was not, yet Samuelsson persisted, claiming the judge seemed irritated and that he did not appreciate the tone. The judge promptly suspended the hearing, calling the situation a disruption of order, and ordered the attorneys and all participants to leave the courtroom. Judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers continued discussions in a nearby conference room, while the audience and plaintiffs’ counsel waited outside. About 15 – 20 minutes later, the hearing resumed. Judge Zander clarified that there was only one presiding judge in the courtroom and noted that regardless of one’s opinion on his statements, they were not subject to challenge or debate. Lastly, he emphasized that questioning or arguing with the judge constituted a disruption of order. The hearing was then concluded for the day.
