Independent legal analysis by 9 Bedford Row Chambers and RPC (2021)

​

What is “A Report on the Lundin Case” and who wrote it?

It is a legal analysis of the Lundin Sudan case prepared in 2021 by international lawyers Steven Kay KC, Gillian Higgins and John Traversi (9BR Chambers) together with Rupert Boswall (RPC), commissioned by the board of Lundin Energy. It examines the evidentiary basis of the allegations and the conduct of the Swedish investigation.

​

Is this an independent analysis or a defence document?

The report is an independent legal analysis produced by external counsel who were not members of the trial defence team. It was commissioned by the company’s board to assess the evidence, and its conclusions are the authors’ own.

​

Are the NGO reports on the Lundin case (such as “Unpaid Debt” or Christian Aid) reliable?

The report identifies significant methodological weaknesses in these accounts: investigations based upon confirmation bias, reliance on anonymous or untested testimony, unreliable sources for the supply of witnesses, inconsistencies between successive versions, and conclusions presented as established fact without verifiable primary sources.

​

What does the report say about the war crimes allegations?

The report challenges the allegation that there was complicity in war crimes, and raises concern that a narrative was created in order to stimulate a prosecution.

​

What concerns does the report raise about the Swedish investigation?

The report notes that the Swedish prosecutors did not carry out their own investigations on the ground, and instead relied on NGO-driven investigations which the report characterises as shaped by an anti-oil-company agenda. It also points to a failure to take into account the EU investigation that visited the region at the time and did not find complicity in war crimes by the company.

​

Does Sweden have jurisdiction to try these facts?

The report argues that applying Swedish law to the question of complicity is contrary to international law, and that exercising universal jurisdiction in these circumstances sets a troubling precedent.

​

Why does the report say this case matters beyond the parties involved?

Because it creates legal uncertainty for any company or executive undertaking legitimate economic activity in developing or post-conflict states — potentially deterring foreign investment that those economies depend on.

​

Is there a comparable case in another jurisdiction?

Yes — the Talisman Energy litigation in the United States (Presbyterian Church of Sudan, 2001), which concerned the same area of South Sudan. The report uses it to illustrate why this prosecution should not proceed.

​

Has anyone been convicted in this case?

No. To date, no court has found either Ian Lundin or Alexandre Schneiter guilty, and no judgment has been issued. The trial before the Stockholm District Court concluded on 28 May 2026, and a verdict is expected on 3 December 2026. The presumption of innocence applies in full and would continue to apply until a final judgment that is no longer open to appeal.