Rebuttals
Please submit all enquiries to info@reportlundinsudan.com
Article: Dagens Juridiks - Johan Brosché
Response: By Steven Kay QC
Johan Brosche’s response to my article you published last week following the release of the Report on the Lundin Case makes it clear he has misunderstood our arguments. Mr Brosche claims my article lacks an empirical foundation – when that is precisely the problem he faces as an accuser.
My article and the Report point out that it is the creation of a narrative that distorts the empirical evidence necessary to establish facts. It is not academic consensus that provides the truth and facts, that is opinion. It is evidence correctly assembled without bias that is the necessary foundation fact finders must use. I have witnessed many times in international criminal cases, Mr Brosche’s description of the collection of evidence by conflict and peace researchers in the manner he so confidently describes, and their conclusions have ultimately been proved to be wrong. Unfortunately, a prevailing narrative or subversion of the facts has attracted such researchers to erroneous conclusions that causes confirmation bias and a failure to recognise the flaws in their work.
The use of religion and oil in the conflicts in southern Sudan are contentious and were used as an emotive driver to garner international attention. It is the simplistic, singular narrative of ‘religious’ or ‘oil’ wars that was disseminated by the NGOs in their reports that we highlight and unpack in the Report on the Lundin Case.
Article: Dagens Juridiks - Johan Brosché
Response: Av Steven Kay QC
Johan Broschés svar på min artikel som publicerades förra veckan i samband med utgivandet av rapporten om Lundinfallet tydliggör det faktum att han har missförstått våra argument. Brosché hävdar att min artikel saknar empirisk grund, men detta är precis den problematik han själv står inför.
Min artikel och rapporten pekar på att det är skapandet av ett narrativ som förvränger de empiriska bevis som krävs för att fastställa fakta. Akademisk enighet utgör inte sanning och fakta – det utgör åsikter. För att samla in fakta är det grundläggande att bevis som används har insamlats på ett korrekt och opartiskt sätt. I internationella brottmål har jag många gånger sett den bevisinsamling som utförts av konflikt- och fredsforskare, som beskrivs av Brosché, och deras slutsatser har i slutändan visat sig vara felaktiga. Ett etablerat narrativ eller ett undertryckande av fakta har tyvärr lockat flera forskare till felaktiga slutsatser, vilket lett till bekräftande av fördomar och att de inte insett bristerna i sitt egna arbete.
Skildringen av religion och olja som orsak till konflikterna i södra Sudan är omtvistad och har använts som en känslomässig drivkraft för att få internationell uppmärksamhet. Det är den förenklade, ensidiga skildringen av ”religiösa krig” eller ”oljekrig” som spridits av icke-statliga organisationer i deras rapporter som vi lyfter fram och adresserar i vår rapport om Lundinfallet.
Article: Dagens Nyheter - Lisa Röstlund
Response: By Steven Kay QC
In your article, Egbert Wesselink of the Dutch organization PAX for Peace (formerly with ECOS) is on the record saying that “the report is full of errors”, but specifically only illustrates this by saying that ECOS was not involved in supporting the Talisman case. There are plenty of facts, all from open source materials, proving – as we have done in the report – that ECOS and its representatives “supported the case against Talisman”.
For example in the report by Bloodhound “Jusifying Blood Money”, it states that: "The European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS) under Egbert Wesselink, Evelien Weller and later Kathelijne Schenkel have been are a driving force in bringing attention to the consequences of Lundin’s activities in Block 5A. ECOS had planned a court case against Talisman in Holland in 2001 but did not pursue this once Talisman was brought before the New York court. ECOS then worked together with Bloodhound from 2005 to look at using satellite images to document the scale of displacement in Lundin’s Block 5A concession, which eventually led to the publication of the ECOS report Unpaid Debt in June 2010."
Also in the 2008 ECOS, Fatal Transactions and PAX publication – ‘Whose Oil? Sudan’s Oil Industry: Facts and Analysis, April 2008’ - the report uses actual documents taken from the Talisman court file in the US civil case.
The description of Steven Kay as “defending Slobodan Milosevic”, to underpin his 25-year career in international criminal law is nuanced. Steven was appointed by the UN Tribunal as an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) to assist it upon defence and fair trial issues as Slobodan Milosevic chose to represent himself. After Milosevic lost the right to defend himself after significant delays in the proceedings due to his ill-health, the Court appointed Steven as an expert in international criminal law to represent him as a court-appointed Defence counsel to ensure he would receive a fair trial.
Framing a case around narratives is a dangerous game. Especially in the case of war crimes allegations. ECOS repeats its claim that we are ignoring reports of deaths, displacement and war in Sudan. We are not. What we are questioning is the credibility of NGO reporting of the events in Sudan and their dependence on the rebel separatists, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army, to establish what actually happened and where and particularly as regards Lundin’s operations.
The overwhelming narrative of alleged war crimes in Sudan has overshadowed the investigation by the Swedish Prosecution Authority into Lundin and its representatives. After 11 years, the Prosecutor has yet to reach a conclusion. He has changed the original contents of his suspicion sheet on several occasions, which suggests the evidence to back up his case is lacking.