Whilst the Company and its representatives have co-operated with the investigation, it has been clear that the inordinate length and continuation of this process is a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Applications have been made by Ian Lundin and Alex Schneiter to the Swedish Court to have the investigation stopped on these grounds. Notwithstanding Sweden's status as a signatory of the Convention, the Swedish Courts have to date declined even to recognise a power to stop the investigation on human rights grounds and an appeal on this issue is on-going.

​

The Company and its representatives have co-operated fully with the Prosecutor by providing documents voluntarily requested as part of the investigation and the Chairman and former CEO have agreed to multiple interviews. The Company has always believed that common sense would prevail, and that the investigation would eventually be closed. However, as time has passed, the Company has become increasingly concerned at the entire approach adopted by the Prosecutor on many levels, including the application of the correct principles of law. The Company considers that the investigation has proceeded on an incorrect basis as to the applicable law for complicit liability. To date, applications to the Swedish Prosecution Authority in 2014 and 2015 on this issue have been rejected. As Sweden seeks to take on the responsibility of prosecuting international crimes under the laws of universal jurisdiction it ought to apply international standards.

​

Moreover, the scope of the Prosecutor's investigation is flawed. For example, the Prosecutor’s office has made it clear that it does not intend to call any representative from the Government of Sudan or its military to testify to alleged primary crimes. However, unless the primary crimes can be proved, there is no foundation for the allegations against the Company. Thereafter, complicity between the Company and the Government of Sudan must be proved in relation to the specific alleged primary crimes.

​

The Prosecutor has decided that owing to the security situation in South Sudan and budgetary constraints, it is unable to carry out any investigations in South Sudan or East Africa.

​

The approach of the Prosecutor in this case shows a willingness to afford unreasonable credence to biased allegations against the Company. It is incumbent on a prosecutor to seek out sources of objective evidence, independent witnesses and corroboration in respect of crimes alleged by NGOs, since they cannot in any sense be considered impartial. This approach has not, however, been taken to date. Furthermore, a prosecutor must be careful not to align himself with the narrative of the NGOs and should investigate a case independently of intermediaries who might supply evidence and a skewed case theory. The dangers of not taking such care are well known to those experienced in other cases involving NGOs. This was a fundamental error, committed in recent years by the Prosecutor in the trial of President Kenyatta at the ICC, which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the charges and the collapse of the case.

​

In August and September 2018, the Company made submissions to the Ministry of Justice that the criteria for authorisation to prosecute were not satisfied, contending that the Prosecution’s investigation is not in accordance with Sweden’s international obligations; and that it is impossible for Sweden to investigate the alleged crimes adequately, given the passage of time and the Prosecution’s own acknowledgement that it was not possible for Swedish personnel to travel to Sudan/ South Sudan.

​

Moreover, there has been unequal treatment as between the Prosecution and the Defence in the Prosecutor’s handling of the investigation, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Prosecutor has sought to restrict the Company’s legal team’s access to details regarding the plaintiffs, has resisted disclosure of the audio recordings of the plaintiffs’ interrogations, and refused to accept the lawful application of privilege to the Company’s materials. The Company was compelled to go to court on each occasion to ensure unrestricted access to the plaintiffs’ details for their legal team, and force disclosure of the recordings and preserve privilege.

​

Furthermore, the bias of the Prosecutor was shown by his unlawful disclosure to the plaintiffs' lawyers of confidential information provided by the Company to the Prosecutor. The Company applied for the Prosecutor to be removed from the investigation as a consequence but whilst the Swedish Prosecution Authority admitted the unlawfulness of Prosecutor Elving's actions in February 2018, he was not removed. A further application to the Parliamentary Ombudsman also failed to secure any action against the Prosecutor to redress this unlawful behaviour. Subsequently, when Prosecutor Elving stood down from the lead role, his successor Prosecutor Attorps also disclosed information unlawfully to the plaintiffs' lawyers to which the Defence has again objected, without consequence.

​

The Company maintains that none of its representatives committed or were complicit in any alleged international crimes in Sudan. The allegations and basis for this investigation are seriously flawed. The Company was a force for development in Sudan and did everything in its power to promote peace in that country.