{"id":145647,"date":"2025-05-22T12:03:03","date_gmt":"2025-05-22T10:03:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/?p=145647"},"modified":"2025-11-13T12:04:07","modified_gmt":"2025-11-13T11:04:07","slug":"lundin-wesselink-dilemma-proof","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/en\/145647-lundin-wesselink-dilemma-proof.html","title":{"rendered":"Lundin: Wesselink and the dilemma of proof"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The trial against Lundin reveals not just the brutality of war, but also the fragility of justice mechanisms built on activism. The role of Egbert Wesselink, the director of the NGO PAX, is emblematic of a broader dilemma: the need for NGOs to document abuses, and the risk when their work becomes legal evidence in high-stakes trials.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The war crimes trial held in Stockholm against Swedish executives of the oil company Lundin operating in Sudan - the longest and most complex trial in the country\u2019s history<\/a> - has produced no shortage of dramatic testimonies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But few witnesses have been as central, and as contested, as Egbert Wesselink. A Dutch peace activist and longtime senior policy advisor at the non-governmental Dutch organization PAX, Wesselink is perhaps best known as the driving force behind the 2010 report, Unpaid Debt<\/em><\/a>, which argued that tens of thousands of civilians were killed or displaced as a direct result of oil exploration in Sudan. A report that, prosecutors say, laid the foundation for the entire trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, on the day Wesselink testified, the courtroom was packed. Human rights activists, journalists, researchers, and diplomats came to see the man described by the defence as the \u201carchitect\u201d of the case. For many, this was a moment of vindication. For others, it was an opportunity to challenge the credibility of a civil society investigation, now repurposed as legal evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lundin\u2019s \u201cgenuine ignorance and deliberate disregard\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The first oil company Wesselink tried to influence was Shell, and he describes \u201can intense but structured dialogue\u201d with its executives. When Shell became involved in Sudan, the country also ended up on his desk. \u201cThis led to Shell withdrawing its business operations from Sudan,\u201d says Wesselink, explaining how they approached the company through both open conferences and closed-door meetings to inform them of the risks of working in Sudan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to him, there are a range of dilemmas faced by anyone working in Sudan. Most of the corporate executives he met acknowledged the existence of \u201cgrey areas and challenges\u201d. \u201cBut Lundin\u2019s CSR [Corporate Social Responsibility] representative, Christine Batruch, stood out. She saw no problems and showed very little interest in the human rights situation,\u201d says Wesselink, arguing that she had been influenced by the Sudanese government\u2019s propaganda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One piece of evidence for this, Wesselink claims, was that she \u201cignored the reports of forced displacement and abuses\u201d. \u201cWhen I brought up issues that I considered to be common knowledge, it created an uncomfortable and strange atmosphere,\u201d he says, adding that Batruch combined \u201cboth genuine ignorance and deliberate disregard\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, Wesselink says he never got the impression that Lundin was interested in implementing the part of the 2003 peace agreement that concerned compensation. \u201cThe companies were never interested in making oil a part of the peace agreement\u2019s success,\u201d he says, explaining that he and the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS) were tasked with convincing the oil companies that they had a responsibility to compensate those affected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report that sparked the trial<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Wesselink recalls that John Luk Jok, the Sudanese minister of culture at the time, said \u201ccompanies are not above the law, they can be taken to court\u201d. \u201cThat became the starting point for Unpaid Debt<\/em>,\u201d he explains, saying that it was no longer just about \u201cproper conduct\u201d, but about the oil companies settling their debt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PAX then also began working to assess the economic damage caused over the years and to lobby companies to pay for these losses. But Wesselink explains that you couldn\u2019t simply go somewhere and \u201cstart asking questions about oil\u201d, as it was politically sensitive. His role, therefore, was to seek support from local chiefs for the work. \u201cResearchers and academics then went out to the villages, with the chiefs acting as enablers, and asked what had happened during the \u2018oil wars\u2019, what were the damages, and how and what the villagers knew about what they had seen and experienced,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The three main questions were: \u201cWhen was the village attacked?\u201d, \u201cBy whom?\u201d, and \u201cWhat were the damages?\u201d, along with a follow-up asking how they knew that what they were reporting had occurred. \u201cIn southern Sudan, the chiefs are like a human archive on two legs. They have preserved knowledge of local events, and their accounts are highly reliable; they have an excellent memory,\u201d Wesselink says, adding that during this work, it was essential to \u201cmanage expectations\u201d, which is why they repeatedly emphasized that there was no mechanism in place for distributing compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe result was long, long lists: the names of villages, the names of the dead, the dates of attacks, who attacked, the dead cows, the stolen cattle and other animals killed, but unfortunately, none of this was used in the report. It wasn\u2019t needed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Published by ECOS, Wesselink\u2019s report, Unpaid Dept<\/em>, claimed that 12.000 people were killed and 160.000 displaced in the region, between 1997 and 2003. The document accused three companies - Lundin (Sweden), Petronas (Malaysia), and OMV (Austria) - of contributing to systematic human rights abuses by operating in partnership with the Sudanese government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Wesselink, the goal was to influence European Union policy and promote a more ethical role for European companies in Sudan\u2019s conflict zones. Unpaid Debt<\/em> was first sent to Lundin in 2008, prompting a sharply worded response from the company\u2019s lawyers who accused the authors of defamation and threatened legal action. That, Wesselink now says, only made the report more rigorous. \u201cWe had to lawyer up, and a British legal expert reviewed the report line by line. That process, I believe, is why we are all here today.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once published, the report was handed in to the Swedish police and could be described as a Big Bang in the Lundin case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Caught between fact-finding and criminal procedure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

From the outset, Wesselink\u2019s courtroom testimony underscored the tension between human rights advocacy and criminal prosecution. NGOs, he said, often fill the gaps when international investigators are unable to operate in war zones. After South Sudan\u2019s civil war erupted in 2013, it became nearly impossible for Swedish police to conduct fieldwork. So Wesselink and his colleagues took the initiative to find witnesses themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He described hiring a South Sudanese journalist named Moses to identify individuals who had experienced or witnessed crimes. Moses compiled a list of 54 potential witnesses from refugee camps in Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia. However, only one of those individuals was eventually used by the prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wesselink explains that before the current court hearing, he had already been interviewed twice by Swedish police and had travelled to Sweden for two additional meetings with the prosecutors. In between, there had been \u201csome email correspondence\u201d. He also describes how the outbreak of war in Juba in December 2013 - when the newly formed nation of South Sudan was thrown into a civil war that lasted until 2018 - made it impossible for Swedish police to investigate crimes on the ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This, in turn, made him reflect on the possibilities for members of the Nuer community to testify, especially as they had been particularly targeted during the war. \u201cWe met with the police in early 2014, but they were like clams - they said nothing. Still, we assumed they needed witnesses; witnesses they now would no longer have access to. So we asked if we could help. We didn\u2019t get a yes, but we also didn\u2019t get a no.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wesselink says they received similar guidance from the prosecutors, who said \u201cyou are free to share with the prosecution authority any information that may assist the investigation\u201d. Time passed, and they requested meetings with prosecutor Magnus Elving<\/a>, which never materialized. \u201cSo we asked: If we find people who could be useful as witnesses, what should we do?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

\r\n\t\t\t\t\t
\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
Recommended reading<\/div>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\tThe Swedish prosecutor who challenged Lundin Oil<\/a>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\n

The answer they received was that \u201cthey should not be interviewed by anyone other than the police, nor should they be advised or guided in any way\u201d. Wesselink says he assumed the prosecutors still needed witnesses who had experienced war crimes and who were willing to speak about them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The distinction proved critical during cross-examination, where the defence sought to portray his efforts as lacking rigor and objectivity. A particularly pointed exchange concerned a photograph in his report Unpaid Debt <\/em>that may have been misattributed to the wrong village. \u201cIf they found a glitch, congratulations,\u201d Wesselink said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Activism and advocacy on trial<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

During cross-examination, the defence sought to challenge Wesselink\u2019s impartiality by highlighting past statements and affiliations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to questions about his neutrality, Wesselink defended the role of peace organizations in conflict zones: \u201cNo and that\u2019s a strange question to ask a peace organization \u2013 that if you are for peace in a conflict, you must choose a side. But yes, it is extremely difficult; you can never remain fully neutral, as every action will be perceived by one side or the other as being for or against them. So it\u2019s a tricky balancing act, a fine line to walk, but we are professionals.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wesselink acknowledged the inherent challenges of working in active conflicts: \u201cWhen you are active in a conflict, even if the information is neutral, it will be used by the parties, and this is unavoidable. But that does not mean you shouldn\u2019t tell the truth.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the defence tried to question Wesselink\u2019s impartiality, Per E. Samuelsson, lawyer of the accused Alexandre Schneiter<\/a>, the former CEO of Lundin Oil, asked whether Wesselink is a shareholder in Orron Energy and, if so, whether it isn\u2019t strange to buy shares in a company he had reported to the police.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

- \u201cYes, I bought five shares in Lundin Energy in 2010, with the aim of reaching the company\u2019s leadership and shareholders to urge them to respect international law and existing ethical guidelines. It\u2019s a legitimate and commonly used method,\u201d Wesselink explained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

- But is it true that you asked the company to pay five million dollars in damages at a shareholders\u2019 meeting?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

- I submitted a proposal that the company should assess and evaluate its human rights impact and, in accordance with international standards, contribute to remedying any negative impacts it had caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

- How large was that amount?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

- I don\u2019t remember, but I\u2019m sure it\u2019s in the documents.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defence attorney Samuelsson then read from the written proposal, which states that five million dollars should be set aside and asked whether Wesselink also demanded that the company\u2019s management resign. \u201cYes, absolutely. I do not believe it\u2019s in the company\u2019s interest to be led by individuals suspected of war crimes,\u201d Wesselink replied, adding that at another shareholders\u2019 meeting, he also criticized Lundin\u2019s lawyers, arguing that they had negatively influenced the company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One example of that, he claimed, is their role in \u201cdelaying the delivery of justice\u201d and denying victims and affected individuals the opportunity to have their case heard, something he said contradicts the human rights principles the Swedish oil company had committed to. \u201cThat\u2019s why I urged the company to correct this aggressive legal strategy, which it failed to take into account,\u201d Wesselink concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\r\n\t\t
FIND THIS ARTICLE INTERESTING?<\/div>\r\n\t\t
\r\n\t\t\tSign up now for our (free) newsletter<\/a> to make sure you don't miss out on other publications of this type. \t\t<\/div>\r\n\t<\/div>\r\n\t\n\n\n