164
Amnesty international and greenpeace netherlands
Chapter 13
In an effort to prevent all-out fraud, in February 2010 the claimants’ UK lawyers agreed a deal with CNVDT-CI to carry out a joint distribution process. Some people were able to access their money through this process, but it was plagued by reports of irregularities and eventually ground to a halt, with some 6,000 people unpaid. The millions of dollars left in the fund disappeared. Both the UK law firm, and Amnesty International pressed the Ivorian government to investigate the case. An investigation into the misappropriation of the compensation money was opened in 2011. In May 2012, Côte d’Ivoire’s Minister of African Integration, Adama Bictogo, who had become involved in the process in 2010, when he is reported to have tried to facilitate an agreement between the claimants’ UK lawyers and CNVDT-CI, was sacked by the President over allegations that he had received some of the compensation money as a “fee” for his role in facilitation.720
Seeking to prevent victims’ access to key information Trafigura has never disclosed all of the information it holds on the content of the Probo Koala waste. As noted in previous chapters of this report, the most thorough analysis of the waste was carried out by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI). This information was handed to lawyers acting for the claimants in the UK case. However, Trafigura had objected to this and brought legal proceedings in the Netherlands seeking to prevent UK lawyers Leigh Day from using the NFI information. Leigh Day had emphasized how important the NFI report was for the victims. On 20 April 2012 the Dutch High Court rejected an appeal by Trafigura in respect of the company’s complaint that the prospector had unlawfully handed over the NFI report to Leight Day.
Allegations of bribery and witness tampering In early 2009, the victim’s lawyers, Leigh Day & Co, alleged that Trafigura and its lawyers, Macfarlanes, improperly approached lead claimants in the UK civil case in an attempt to make them change their testimonies. They obtained a temporary injunction barring Trafigura’s lawyers from contacting claimants in the case, after evidence was presented that some claimants had come under pressure to change their sworn statements. In particular, it was alleged that Macfarlanes, acting for Trafigura, paid for a claimant witness to travel to Morocco
where he was met by one of Macfarlanes’ partners who questioned him for two days. This individual alleges that he was offered inducements to change his story and was put under considerable pressure to do so. He described the situation:
““
I left Abidjan with Royal Air Maroc… I travelled business class. ...we were booked into the Sheraton. I had never seen such beautiful hotel in my life. I ate very well at the Sheraton…. The day after our arrival, two white men who spoke English arrived. At the beginning we chatted; then they began to ask me a lot of questions. I passed two entire days from 8am to 10pm responding to their questions. We took pauses of 20 minutes from time to time, but it was intense. They spoke of many illnesses such as malaria. They asked me how I could be sure that my illness had been caused by the waste and not something else… They told me to say that I hadn’t seen the trucks, even though I clearly remember seeing the trucks discharging the waste in Akouédo.
”
“ “ I started to feel that I had to agree with them or I wouldn’t be going home alive. After all these questions I was no longer even sure of the truth. The whites also knew I had a daughter. They told me that they could take care of her and pay all her expenses. I was astonished that they knew I had a daughter and even knew her 721 name and date of birth.
”
Both Trafigura722 and Macfarlanes723 have denied the allegations that they acted improperly in respect of the questioning of witnesses. Macfarlanes admit to having met the claimant witness in Morocco and paying for his “travel and related costs”. They deny however having offered any inducements or having acted unethically. They have stated that they had “valid and exceptional legal reasons for agreeing to meet the individual referred to”, adding “We … had the right, and indeed duty, to investigate by interviewing the claimants, as their evidence would be likely to have a fundamental bearing on the case.”724