Lundin Oil,iii its former CEO and Chairman of the Board are suspected of complicity in alleged war crimes committed in Block 5A in southern Sudan 1999-2003. From the outset, the Company has always maintained that none of its representatives committed or were complicit in any international crimes in Sudan. The allegations and basis for this investigation are seriously flawed as set out in outline in this report.

​

Nearly 20 years have passed since the allegations were first published in a report issued by Christian Aid, “Scorched Earth: Oil and War in Sudan” (Scorched Earth) in March 2001. These allegations were investigated immediately by the Company and exposed to be without foundation. Independent journalists who accompanied Lundin into Block 5A on that investigation, found nothing to support the allegations. EU Ambassadors who visited Sudan two months later in May 2001, concluded the allegations made by various groups and individuals were inaccurate and based on hearsay rather than independent and objective observations. They also noted that the oil companies had improved the infrastructure in the areas, which in turn had improved people’s access to marketplaces, health and water. In Sweden, no steps were taken at this stage to investigate the actions of the Company.

​

The NGOs and advocacy groups who made allegations against the possible complicity of the Company were influenced in their reporting by the main rebel group, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). This reality has never been acknowledged by the advocacy groups. The SPLM/A did not want the Government of Sudan to receive oil revenues and sought a deliberate policy of targeting oil companies, which mainly included an international propaganda campaign driven by advocacy, NGO and religious groups, underpinned by a deliberately misleading narrative around ‘oil wars’. The reality was far more complex and importantly, none of these groups ever visited the Company’s area of activities. Crucially, a World Bank publication from 2003 made the following finding: “The conflict began before the discovery of oil in commercial quantities. Oil is therefore not a prime cause of the conflict, but the future distribution of oil revenue is one of the main outstanding issues in the IGAD peace negotiations.”

​

By way of background, the Company entered Block 5A in southern Sudan in 1997 following the formulation and agreement of principles for peace in the Political Charter dated 10th April 1996. At that time, peace was the talk of the town with the signing of the Khartoum Peace Agreement (KPA) on 21st April 1997. Notably, the KPA included provisions on the distribution of oil revenues between the Government of Sudan and the States and contained assurances that all parties would refrain from armed conflict.

 

Following discussions with central  and local authorities and the signing of the KPA, the Company reasonably expected to be operating in a peaceful environment in Sudan. This belief was held against the backdrop of the EU and UN supporting a policy of constructive engagement and the active encouragement of oil companies and others to invest in the country. It was believed that the economic benefits from oil and international investment would help Sudan to develop and improve the lives of its people. Economic development was seen as a means of long-term peace building. Notably, there were no contraindications by way of UN or European sanctions stopping companies from investing or carrying out operations in Sudan.

​

Over the course of the Company’s activity in Block 5A, it maintained close ties with the local communities through its extensive Community Development and Humanitarian Assistance Program. At no stage did Sweden’s Authorities advise, direct or otherwise intervene to halt exploration activities. Neither did the United Nations at any point make any demands that the Company should cease its activities in Sudan. Contrary to the claims of the NGOs there is evidence of Lundin’s commitment to support and provide much-needed infrastructure for the local population that undermines the allegations the Company has faced.

 

Seen in context, the Company was a minor contributor to the overall drilling activity in the area known as the Muglad-Sudd Rift Basin (the “Muglad Basin” covering an area approximately 750 km long and 250 km wide). During the period 1997-2003, 235 exploration, appraisal and development wells were drilled in southern Sudan and the Company drilled just four in Block 5A, accounting for only 1.85% of the total number of wells drilled in the Muglad Basin. The Company never progressed beyond exploratory and appraisal drilling and seismic soundings. The footprint left by its exploration activities was miniscule in comparison with the size of Block 5A and the activities carried out by other companies in other oil blocks in Sudan as it operated for no more than three months of each year.

​

The Company eventually sold its interest to Petronas Carigali and left Block 5A in 2003 without ever having produced any oil commercially.

​

In early June 2010, seven years after the Company had formally left Block 5A, the previously discredited allegations were recycled by a campaigning organisation known as The European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS), in its report “Unpaid Debt, The Legacy of Lundin, Petronas and OMV in Block 5A, Sudan 1997-2003”. Notably, these allegations targeting the Company only arose after a case ECOS had supported against the Canadian oil company Talisman for damages was struck out by a US court. It was held that the claimants had failed to establish that Talisman “acted with the purpose to support the Government’s offences.”

​

Notwithstanding the fact that nothing material had changed since the Company's exoneration in 2001, on 21st June 2010, the Swedish Prosecutor announced the opening of a preliminary investigation. It was not until the end of 2016 that the Company Chairman and CEO at the time were formally declared to be under suspicion. Over the past 11 years, the Prosecutor has changed the original contents of his suspicion sheet on several occasions – an approach which suggests the evidence to back up his case is absent. The unreasonable length of time taken to conduct this investigation constitutes a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

​

The allegations against the Company and its representatives being considered by the Swedish Prosecutor are without merit and will be challenged in the Swedish Court, should that stage be reached. The Company never ordered by direct or indirect means that any actions be taken by any forces or militias that contributed to the conflict in Sudan, nor did it control any such actions. It held no authority or power that could even cause it to influence events or acts that took place between rival factions in Sudan that had been in conflict with each other for decades, and indeed, remain so today.

​

This report sets out the Company’s involvement in the country, its work in the field of Community Development and Humanitarian Assistance, its contribution to peace, the falsity of the NGO allegations and the response taken by the Company and other actors at the time. The Swedish political context and elements of the unfairness of the investigation to date are also set out in brief.