Outside Courtroom 34, the atmosphere was charged on the final day. Plaintiffs, South Sudanese observers and representatives of civil society gathered in the corridor waiting for the green light above the courtroom door. When final proceedings started, it marked the 346th<\/sup> and final hearing day after almost three years of trial proceedings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the company\u2019s lawyers, the mood was almost celebratory. After years spent together in the same courtroom, many appeared relieved that the proceedings were finally coming to an end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the plaintiffs, the feeling was different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFor a long time, the Lundin company believed that we would never be able to come here. But I came here and testified. I was here together with more than thirty other plaintiffs, and many others have brought forward their complaints\u201d, reflected Pastor James Ninrew, who testified about displacement, lost family members, burned villages and a life forever altered by war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Ninrew, the proceedings have sent an important message far beyond Sweden: \u201cEven if you commit crimes in Africa, your actions can be examined when you return home to your own country.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inside the courtroom, the screens displayed the words \u201cClaim for Compensation\u201d, along with the following sentence: \u201cThe litigation costs for which the company now seeks compensation have, given the nature and scale of the case, been reasonably justified in order for the company to safeguard its rights during both the investigation and an exceptionally extensive trial.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The company\u2019s lawyers then outlined the legal basis for their reimbursement claims, arguing that the case\u2019s complexity and international scope had required extraordinary resources. The defence further argued that what it described as an \u201cunclear indictment\u201d had forced them to conduct extensive legal and factual research over many years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defence argues that its unusually large legal teams were a necessary response to the scale of the prosecution. The compensation claims reveal a defence effort that functioned almost like a parallel institution over the course of a decade. Thousands of pages of submissions, expert reports and legal opinions were produced in response to the prosecution\u2019s allegations.\u00a0The costs submitted to the court include not only those of the Swedish defence but also of international law firms in London, Geneva and elsewhere, legal experts, consultants, translators, researchers and technical specialists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the filings, the defence relied on some of the world\u2019s largest corporate law firms, including Hogan Lovells and Quinn Emanuel, as well as a network of experts in international criminal law, oil industry operations, Sudanese history and conflict analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ian Lundin alone is seeking approximately\u00a0SEK 267 million (\u20ac24 million)\u00a0in compensation. Of that amount,\u00a0\u20ac15 million relates to fees charged by his Swedish defence team at A1 Advokater \u2013 in which senior defence lawyers Torgny Wetterberg and Thomas Tendorf billed at hourly rates of approximately \u20ac645 during the later stages of the proceedings.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\t The detailed cost claims also provide a rare glimpse into how the former oil executive lived during the trial. According to the filings, Lundin regularly travelled between Geneva and Stockholm using his own aircraft. But he is not seeking reimbursement for the actual cost of those flights. Instead, he claims compensation equivalent to what flexible business-class tickets on commercial airlines would have cost. That amount totals \u20ac43,000. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While attending court in Stockholm, Lundin stayed at the Lydmar Hotel, a luxury waterfront hotel in central Stockholm. His hotel expenses amounted to \u20ac78,000. The defence argues that the cost was justified because Lundin was required to appear in person repeatedly over an extended period and therefore needed long-term accommodation rather than occasional overnight stays. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But the most striking travel-related expense concerns security: Lundin seeks reimbursement of \u20ac130,000 for personal protection during his stays in Stockholm. According to the filings, the amount covers travel between Bromma Airport, the hotel and the court, as well as private security services. In other words, the accused executive maintained personal security protection throughout significant parts of the proceedings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Taken together, flights, accommodation, transportation and security cost nearly \u20ac255,000. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Schneiter\u2019s claim is slightly lower than Ian Lundin\u2019s, but still amounts to roughly\u00a0a quarter of a billion Swedish krona (\u20ac22.4 million), making it likely one of the largest individual legal compensations claims ever submitted in Swedish history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Info calculated that an estimated 40 to 60 lawyers and legal professionals were involved in defence at various stages between 2010 and 2026. Of the \u20ac75 million claimed in legal costs, approximately \u20ac46 million relates to the personal defence costs of Ian Lundin and Alexandre Schneiter. The remaining \u20ac28 million is claimed by Orr\u00f6n Energy for its own representation, expert witnesses, consultants, translators and internal legal work throughout the investigation and trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Under an agreement described in the filings, Orr\u00f6n Energy has paid the defence costs as they arose. If the court decides that Ian Lundin or Schneiter is entitled to compensation, the reimbursement would ultimately be paid to the company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The figure is remarkable not only because of its size but because it exceeds the value of the oil asset that lies at the heart of the case: when Lundin Oil sold its stake in Block 5A in southern Sudan in 2003, the transaction was worth approximately \u20ac67 million.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The prosecutors are expected to submit their response to the compensation claims on 25 August.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers are expected to submit their costs claims on June 5. According to one of the lawyers, they didn\u2019t have the resources to calculate and check all the costs in the same swift manner as the defence team. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Unlike the defence team, the 34 South Sudanese plaintiffs were represented by a small group of Swedish lawyers. Over more than a decade of investigation and nearly three years of trial, their work has included preparing witnesses, maintaining contact with plaintiffs scattered across South Sudan and the diaspora and ensuring that the victims\u2019 voices were heard in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Their work included preparing compensation claims on behalf of the plaintiffs for property that were destroyed, and livestock lost during attacks. In southern Sudan, cattle are not merely livestock but the principal store of wealth. At the time, cattle were valued by weight, with one kilogram fetching around 300 Sudanese pounds. With an average weight of 400 kilograms, a single cow was worth approximately \u20ac180\u2013\u20ac200. A plaintiff who lost 150 cows therefore could claim compensation equivalent to roughly \u20ac30,000 \u2013 a fortune in a war-ravaged region at the turn of the millennium.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the compensation claims were separated from the criminal proceedings by Stockholm District Court in 2023 and will not be decided as part of the verdict. The plaintiffs\u2019 demands would have to be pursued in separate civil proceedings after a potential guilty verdict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Info has asked the Ministry of Justice about the overall cost of this longest trial in Swedish history but not received a reply yet. From people with insight, we have been told that it might be \u201cimpossible to calculate\u201d, as it\u2019s a part of the annual budget for the department to run courts and pay salaries for prosecutors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the final hearing ended, plaintiff Ruth Nyaleel walked quickly down the courthouse steps. While lawyers could calculate every hour worked and every invoice submitted, she said another cost remained impossible to quantify: \u201cIt is regrettable that while costs may be calculated, the pain and suffering this company has caused in our lives cannot be measured.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judgment is scheduled for 3 December.<\/p>\n\n\nWorld\u2019s largest corporate law firms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
In its cost submissions, Orr\u00f6n Energy notes that the prosecution was often represented by five or six prosecutors during the trial and by large teams of investigators throughout the years-long investigation. The company had to assemble teams with expertise in international criminal law, humanitarian law, corporate governance, accounting, oil operations and Sudan-related issues to match the breadth of the case and effectively protect its interests.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nPrivate flights and personal security bills<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defence more expensive than the oil site<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Other claims and costs of the trial<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Alexandre](\"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/Alexandre-Schneiter_@Lundin-PR-540x360.jpg\")
<\/div><\/a>\r\n\t\t\t