A new report by the research organization Swedwatch of 29 April 2025 highlights critical human rights risks associated with the global transition to renewable energy. The report reveals that human rights and environmental defenders face serious threats and reprisals in countries where renewable energy projects are being rapidly developed.
More than half of the world’s total prospective wind farm capacity, and more than two thirds of the prospective solar farm capacity, is estimated to take place in countries with obstructed, repressed or closed civic space.
While scaling up wind, solar, and hydropower is essential to limiting global warming to 1.5°C, this growth must not come at the expense of human rights.
–We cannot build a green future on the backs of those who are silenced or displaced. The renewable energy transition must not come at the cost of human rights. Defenders are not obstacles – they are essential allies in ensuring that this is just, equitable, and sustainable, says Alice Blondel, Director Swedwatch.
Renewable energy projects require large land areas, often affecting local communities, ecosystems, and livelihoods. Swedwatch’s analysis shows that the renewable energy transition will largely take place in countries with restricted civic space and poor human rights protections, where defenders who raise concerns often face harassment, legal persecution and at times even deadly violence.
The report Renewables and Reprisals – Defenders at risk in the green energy transition in Brazil, Honduras, Mozambique, and the Philippines is based on a global mapping of such high-risk areas for defenders, where civic space is restricted and where renewable energy expansion is projected to accelerate. Additionally, the report presents four case studies from Mozambique, Honduras, Brazil, and the Philippines, where defenders and affected community members describe restrictions and reprisals of defenders linked to renewable energy projects.
-The report underscores the urgent need for stronger protections for defenders, transparent consultation processes, and corporate accountability. Without immediate action, the rapid expansion of renewables risk repeating the same human rights abuses seen in industries such as mining and agribusiness, rather than fostering a truly just energy transition, says Alice Blondel.
Expansion of renewables in countries with high risks for defenders Swedwatch’s findings indicate that a large share of the expansion of renewable energy is taking place in countries where civic space is restricted, and defenders are at significant risk.
Case studies: Defenders under threat In the four case studies, defenders from Mozambique, Honduras, Brazil and the Philippines described restrictions of basic civic freedoms and risks of verbal, legal or violent physical attacks when reporting about impacts of renewable energy projects.
Mozambique: According to interviews in the report, the planning of the Mphanda Nkuwa hydropower project has been marred by inadequate social and environmental impact assessments, lack of transparency, and suppression of civic engagement. Defenders reported threats, violation of freedom of assembly, and an overall disregard for their right to participate in decision-making processes.
Honduras: Human rights defenders have faced legal intimidation through SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) for their criticism of the Los Prados solar power project, according to a group of women human rights lawyers. Community members involved in protests have allegedly been surveilled and subjected to repressive actions by security forces. Defenders also reported smear campaigns in the media, further restricting their ability to voice concerns.
Brazil: In Brazil, the wind power project Bons Ventos failed to properly include impacted communities, including marginalized groups, traditional fishing, and quilombola communities, in consultations, according to interviews. Defenders decided to remain anonymous in the interviews out of fear of reprisals, citing increasing threats and violence against defenders in the past years.
The Philippines: Indigenous defenders from the Tumandok communities were allegedly threatened, harassed, and killed when the national police and the armed forces raided their communities after community leaders criticized the Jalaur River Multipurpose project, according to a CSO operating in the area. Defenders reporting on the dam project outlined persecution, surveillance and red-tagging – terror-labelling by the government accusing defenders of being communist insurgents, creating an environment of fear and impunity.
Swedwatch´s recommendations As the world races to meet climate targets, a just transition must include the voices of those most affected by energy projects, and defenders are essential in ensuring that renewable energy projects respect human rights and the environment.
-Governments, businesses, and financial institutions must work together to ensure that human rights are protected, and that defenders can operate without fear of repression or violence. Engaging with defenders as valuable partners rather than as adversaries can help governments and businesses ensure renewable energy projects’ alignment with international human rights obligations, mitigate conflicts, and promote sustainable development, says Jessica Johansson.
Detailed recommendations to different actors can be found in the report, below the main ones are summarized:
Recommendations for governments:
Adopt legislation on mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) for companies, highlighting risks to defenders and meaningful consultation with defenders.
Adopt laws on company transparency laws and access to information.
Establish and enforce protections for defenders, ensuring they can operate without fear of retaliation, and provide effective legal remedies for those affected by violations.
Recommendations for companies and investors:
Strengthening their HRDD processes by integrating civic space risks and ensuring meaningful stakeholder engagement with defenders.
Adopt and enforce a zero-tolerance policy against reprisals targeting defenders (and affected communities).
Take appropriate action when business partners or third parties commit violations in relation to their business activities.
The Global Torture Index, a pioneering initiative by OMCT and partners, is poised to revolutionize the global fight against torture. It will be launched on 25 June, during the Global Week Against Torture, organized by OMCT and its partners in collaboration with #UnitedAgainstTorture – an EU-funded consortium of six leading anti-torture organizations.
Despite 175 countries ratifying the UN Convention Against Torture, this grave violation of human rights persists in prisons, public assemblies, armed conflicts, and daily police interventions. Torture remains shrouded in secrecy, making it difficult to detect and eradicate.
The Global Torture Index is an innovative tool, developed in collaboration with over 200 local civil society organizations that form the SOS-Torture Network, human rights defenders, and consulted with international experts, provides robust, data-driven insights and trend analysis into the risk of torture and ill-treatment across countries. The Global Torture Index map will serve as a critical resource for policymakers, governments, media, and activists, offering actionable recommendations, measuring progress and regression on human rights compliance, identifying good practices and fostering global awareness.
Follow us on social media to learn how you can take part in the launch of the Global Torture Index and discover how this powerful tool will empower the global anti-torture movement, bring torture out of the shadows, and drive meaningful change.
“Removing a dictator is not enough; real change requires a shift in governance, security, justice.”
Syrians gather in celebration days after the fall of Bashar Assad’s government at Umayyad Square in Damascus on Dec. 12, 2024. | Leo Correa/AP
On 19 May 2025 Bassam Alahmad, Noah Abbas, and Simav Hasan wrote in Global Citizen an interesting piece on how Syrian human rights defenders feel about the changes in their country:
In a previously published Global Citizen In My Own Words article, human rights defender Bassam Alahmad detailed his experiences of being a stateless citizen residing in Syria who stands for justice. In this article, following the fall of Al-Assad, Bassam Alahmad is joined by colleagues from Syrians For Truth and Justice, Simav Hasan, and Noah Abbas, as they share their reflections on what the regime change in the country means for them personally and for their hopes for a democratic Syria.
How would you describe your relationship with Syria and how has the decades-long conflict impacted you?
Bassam Alahmad: I think ‘complicated’ or ‘complex’ is the best way to describe my relationship with Syria. Being born stateless means having no rights, but we love our country because we were born there. We know the people and communities and we belong to the land but I didn’t feel as though I belonged politically. I didn’t feel as though I had full citizenship in the country. I like my country but unfortunately, the way in which the Kurdish people were treated for decades made it so we didn’t feel like we were equal parts of this country.
Noah Abbas: As a Kurdish Syrian national, the long-standing conflict in Syria has profoundly influenced both my personal and professional life. It has not only shaped my views on war and peace, but has also deepened my understanding of resilience and the value of community. Witnessing the enduring struggles of friends, family, and the broader Syrian community has motivated me to advocate for humanitarian causes and pursue solutions that aim to bring lasting peace to the region. The impact of this conflict extends into my academic pursuits as well; I am currently engaged in postgraduate studies in military intelligence and security.
This academic path was chosen with a clear purpose: to shift the perspective on the role of intelligence in Syria. Under Al-Assad’s governance, intelligence agencies were often viewed as instruments of fear, particularly against opponents of the regime. As a human rights activist, I believe it is our duty to transform this perception and demonstrate how intelligence can serve as a cornerstone for justice and societal safety. Joining the efforts of Syrians for Truth and Justice has been crucial in my journey.
Simav Hasan: I am a Kurd from Qamishli, and so my existence here has always been shaped by layers of oppression, resistance, and hope. The decades-long conflict has left scars on my community and on me personally. I’ve witnessed forced displacement, the suffering of victims, and the destruction of lives and history. But more than that, I’ve felt the weight of injustice firsthand — whether through the fight for accountability, the struggle for basic rights, or the ongoing humanitarian crises. Despite everything, I refuse to detach myself from this reality. My work as a journalist and human rights activist is my way of pushing back against the violence, ensuring that the voices of the victims are heard, and trying to carve out a future where justice isn’t just a distant dream. The war has taken much, but it has also strengthened my resolve. Even in the darkest moments, I believe in the power of truth, memory, and resistance.
………
In 2024 the Al-Assad government fell, how did this make you feel?
Alahmad: To be honest, while part of me is very happy that there is no longer the Assad regime, part of me also thinks that there is a big obstacle in the road to democracy, open civic society, and citizenship. As people working in human rights we must not be naive because we know the history and we know that there are human rights violations committed. The main issue is there is a huge gap betweenwhat they say to the west — to the EU, to the US, to the UN — and what they ultimately decide. For example, the national dialogue was kind of a missed opportunity, where instead of having a good version of national dialogue in Damascus and to be more inclusive, they excluded a huge part of Syria, including Kurds and other minorities.
It was a missed opportunity. The same is true with the constitutional declaration adopted in March 2025. They didn’t recognize the Kurdish people or the Kurdish language. They did not recognize diversity. Most of the authority was in the hands of the president. Our main problem is that Syria without the Assad regime is good, but there is no guarantee that we are going towards democracy. The recent Human Rights Watch report on the constitutional declaration clearly states that this constitutional declaration is not a road to a democratic country. This should be very clear for our partners in the US, the EU, and the international community. The most serious thing that happened in the coastal area in Latakia and Tartus is that hundreds of Alawite people were killed based on their identity, because they are from this minority group. A lot of violations happened by the groups linked to the government.
Abbas: The fall of the Al-Assad government, as welcomed by human rights organizations, provoked a complex mix of emotions within me. On one hand, I felt a profound sense of relief and happiness that the brutal regime, known for its relentless human rights violations and oppressive rule, had come to an end. The release of prisoners of conscience and the acknowledgment of the sacrifices made by countless human rights defenders brought a wave of hope for a future where justice and accountability could finally be addressed. However, as a Kurdish-Syrian national, this transition also brought with it significant fears and concerns. The potential for ethnic conflicts or even ethnic cleansing within the new power structures (such as the factions that committed violations in Efrin city, my home town, and other Kurdish cities across the country) was alarming, especially given the historical challenges faced by Kurdish communities in asserting their rights and safety within Syria.
Despite these fears, the fall of the regime marked a critical moment for Syria — an opportunity to rebuild and redefine the nation on the principles of freedom, justice, and human dignity. It was a moment to champion the efforts of Syrians for Truth and Justice and engage more actively in the civil society space dedicated to transitional justice and documenting human rights violations.
Hasan: With the fall of the Assad government, I felt a sense of cautious optimism. It marked the end of a regime responsible for decades of repression, war crimes, and mass atrocities — a moment many victims and survivors had long awaited. There was hope that this could be the beginning of rebuilding Syria on principles of justice, accountability, and human rights. However, I remained wary. The fall of a regime does not automatically guarantee freedom or stability. Power vacuums in Syria have often led to new forms of repression and external interference. Many armed actors still operate with impunity, and the path to true justice remains uncertain. While this moment was significant, real change depended on what came next. Would justice be pursued? Would the voices of victims and marginalized communities — especially Kurds and other oppressed groups — be heard? The fall of Assad was a turning point, but Syria’s future was still being written.
The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (the Resource Centre) seeks a creative, strategic and inspiring leader ready to drive the next generation of progress in strengthening human rights in business. For more than two decades the Resource Centre has sought to amplify the voices of rightsholders and work collaboratively with allies and partners to strengthen corporate practices and support smart regulation to deliver a just economy, address the climate crisis and counter abuse. The ideal candidate will bring energy and insights to the Resource Centre’s vision of transformational change, which is built on community-led action and enhanced by global partnership. The Executive Director will have a strong understanding of international human rights, labour, environmental and climate frameworks as they relate to business–and how to make change happen through those frameworks. They will be able to work effectively with people and organisations at many levels, including grassroots leaders, government representatives, funders, corporate executives and investors.
The Executive Director will lead our global team of 80 across 30 locations, operating with a budget of US$6 million and working in diverse alliances and partnerships worldwide.
KEY RESPONSIBILITIES
Strategic Leadership
Management and Organisational Culture
Thought and Field Leadership
Resource Mobilization, Budget Oversight and Finance:
LOCATION AND COMPENSATION
The successful candidate can work in our offices in London, New York, Berlin, or Bogota, or remotely (home-based) anywhere there is strong and continuous internet access. Our team members are based all over the world, and most of our meetings take place during GMT hours to cover Asia and Latin America. The candidate must be committed to working across time zones, be flexible with respect to participating in early and late calls as needed, and able to work at least four hours that overlap with 09:00 – 17:00 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).
The role requires frequent travel to all regions of the world (~35%) in order to connect in-person with Global Team members, partners, local communities, board members and funders, and to represent the Resource Centre at global events.
HOW TO APPLY
This search is being led by consultant Jenna Capeci, in partnership with the board and staff of the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre.
Timeline
Applications are due by Friday, June 13th, 2025. Selected applicants will begin to be contacted for interviews by July 2025. Interviews will be conducted from July through early September. Tentative timing for rounds of interviews are: July 14 – 18, August 13 – 22 and September 3 – 16. Finalists will be asked to create and make a brief presentation. Anticipated start date is October/November 2025. Applications may be reviewed over time, so please be patient if you do not hear from us immediately. Applicants not invited for interviews will be notified by the end of August.
How to apply
Please apply through this portal. Only applications received in this portal will be considered.
Reacting to the news that the Russian authorities have declared Amnesty International an “undesirable organization” thereby criminalizing its activities and any association with the organization in Russia, Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, said19 May 2025
“This decision is part of the Russian government’s broader effort to silence dissent and isolate civil society. In a country where scores of activists and dissidents have been imprisoned, killed or exiled, where independent media has been smeared, blocked or forced to self-censor, and where civil society organizations have been outlawed or liquidated, you must be doing something right if the Kremlin bans you.
“The authorities are deeply mistaken if they believe that by labelling our organization “undesirable” we will stop our work documenting and exposing human rights violations – quite the opposite. We will not give in to the threats and will continue undeterred to work to ensure that people in Russia are able to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. We will keep documenting and speaking worldwide about the war crimes committed in Ukraine by Russia. We will redouble our efforts to expose Russia’s egregious human rights violations both at home and abroad.
The authorities are deeply mistaken if they believe that by labelling our organization “undesirable” we will stop our work documenting and exposing human rights violations – quite the oppositeAgnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General
“We will never stop fighting for the release of prisoners of conscience detained for standing up for human rights or for the repeal of repressive laws that prevent people in Russia from speaking up against injustice. We will continue to work relentlessly to ensure that all those who are responsible for committing grave human rights violations, whether in Russia, Ukraine, or elsewhere, face justice. Put simply, no authoritarian assault will silence our fight for justice. Amnesty will never give up or back down in its fight for upholding human rights in Russia and beyond.”
Background
On 19 May 2025, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office declared Amnesty International an “undesirable organization” under repressive 2015 Russian legislation which allows the authorities to ban arbitrarily any foreign organization and criminalize its activities in Russia. The announcement accused Amnesty International of promoting “Russophobic projects” and indicated that it was prompted by the organization’s work on freedom of expression and association in Russia, and its documentation and exposition of crimes under international law committed by Russian forces in Ukraine. The decision is based on a Russian law which in itself violates international law, and the language of the decision goes against facts accusing Amnesty International of activities which, within its statutory documents and policies, it is prevented from undertaking.
The designation comes three years after the Russian authorities blocked access to Amnesty International’s websites in Russia and de-registered – effectively closed down – the organization’s office in Moscow. The designation puts at risk of prosecution in Russia partner organizations and individual supporters, journalists, other persons who now work with, or are seen by the authorities as supporting or promoting, the organization.
Under Russian legislation, participation in the activities of an “undesirable organization” is punishable by law. First-time “offenses” may result in administrative fines of up to 15,000 rubles (around US$185). Repeated violations as well as funding or managing such organizations carry criminal liability and can lead to prison sentences of up to six years. The law has previously been applied to the distribution or reposting of any materials from the designated organization, including publications and hyperlinks predating its designation as “undesirable”.
This designation places Amnesty International among dozens of independent NGOs and media outlets that have been targeted in recent years as part of a sweeping campaign to suppress dissent and dismantle civil society in Russia and prevent international watchdogs and partners from providing support or showing solidarity with them. These moves are the backbone of a pattern whereby the Russian authorities are using authoritarian practices to silence voices, undermine accountability and entrench power. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/01/22/in-russia-first-criminal-case-under-undesirable-organizations-law/]
Laureates from each of the major global regions (or their representatives) traveled to Ireland to accept the Award, including:
Africa: Luc Agblakou of Hirondelle Club International (Benin)
Americas: The Movement for Human Rights, Peace and Global Justice (MONDHA) (Dominican Republic / Haiti)
Asia and the Pacific: Arnon Nampa of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (Thailand)
Europe and Central Asia: Sharifa Madrakhimova (Uzbekistan)
Middle East and North Africa: Mhamed Hali (Western Sahara)
“In a world that has become harsher for human rights defenders, these five courageous individuals and organisations face tremendous risks while carrying out their peaceful work to uphold the rights of their communities,” said Alan Glasgow, Executive Director of Front Line Defenders.
“These laureates are rays of light in some very dark situations of repression, discrimination and detention. Their steadfast commitment to human rights provides the solutions we need to brink humanity back from the brink, and to create a better, more just world. Governments must begin to see human rights defenders, not as a threat to their grasp on power, but as positive changemakers who can improve societies and defend the human rights of their citizens.”
This year’s laureates were selected from among hundreds of candidates put forward in a secure, public nomination process carried out between November 2024 and January 2025. In addition to a cash prize aimed at bolstering their protection, the winners receive support from Front Line Defenders on digital and physical security, advocacy, visibility, wellbeing and more.
The 2025 Front Line Defenders Award winners are:
Africa
Luc Agblakou is a human rights educator and defender for LGBTIQ+ rights in Benin. He is the Founding President of Hirondelle Club International, the first LGBTIQ+ organisation promoting integration in the country. His work has led to the inclusion of LGBTIQ+ people in the strategic plan to combat HIV/AIDS in Benin as well as court rulings promoting the protection of the LGBTIQ+ community.
Americas
The Movement for Human Rights, Peace and Global Justice (MONDHA), representing the Dominican Republic and Haiti, is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) founded in 2005 with the aim of improving the living conditions of vulnerable communities, with a particular focus on women and young people in these communities. MONDHA’s work is particularly strong in support of people of Haitian descent. To achieve this goal, they implement human development programmes related to community health, legal aid, human rights and education for communities and people of Haitian descent.
Asia and the Pacific
Arnon Nampa is a human rights lawyer who volunteers with Thai Lawyers for Human Rights. TLHR was established in 2014 to provide legal assistance to alleged violators of lèse-majesté (insulting the monarchy) and HRDs targeted by the authorities following the military coup of 22 May 2014. Arnon Nampa has defended numerous individuals accused of lèse-majesté under Article 112 of the Criminal Code, including the cases of several jailed HRDs.
Mhamed Hali from Western Sahara is a dedicated human rights defender and a member of the Sahrawi Association of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations committed by the Moroccan State (ASVDH). He holds a doctorate in international humanitarian law, and currently serves as the Secretary General of the Association for the Protection of Sahrawi Prisoners in Moroccan Prisons (LPPS).
The value of human rights awards was once again demonstrated by the reaction of the Nicaraguan Government which withdrew from the UN cultural body. The Nicaraguan authorities justified their decision by denouncing the award as the “diabolical expression of a traitorous anti-patriotic sentiment” of La Prensa, which they accuse of promoting “military and political interventions by the United States in Nicaragua.” The Nicaraguan government denounced UNESCO’s decision, saying it gives prominence to “the traitors, slaves and lackeys of colonialism and imperialism,” adding the organization “totally abandons any sense of objectivity.
UNESCO director-general Audrey Azoulay said on Sunday that she “regrets” the country’s decision, adding that it would “deprive the people of Nicaragua of the benefits of cooperation, particularly in the fields of education and culture.” The organization is “fully within its mandate” of defending freedom of expression and freedom of the press, Azoulay said.
On 12 May 2025, Theodoros Benakis posted about a Finnish pilot programme to support human rights defenders
In 2025, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in partnership with Artists at Risk (AR) and the City of Helsinki, will initiate a pilot programme designed to provide temporary support and protection for human rights defenders in Finland. This programme aims to facilitate a three-month relocation for two selected human rights defenders who often operate under hazardous conditions and face significant challenges, including threats and harassment. In severe instances, their lives may be endangered due to their commitment to advocacy.
During their 90-day stay, these individuals can continue their essential work in a safe and stable environment while also fostering connections within local and international networks. The coordination of this programme will be led by Artists at Risk, a Finnish organisation with over a decade of experience developing protection initiatives for vulnerable and persecuted professionals in the arts, including those fleeing conflict situations such as the war in Ukraine.
The City of Helsinki will host this initiative, funded by the European Union’s ProtectDefenders.eu Human Rights Defenders mechanism, alongside contributions from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the City of Helsinki. The experiences and outcomes derived from this pilot programme will play a critical role in informing potential decisions regarding establishing a national support programme in the future.
Father of Anna Kwok Charged with National Security Crime
The Hong Kong police arrested the father of a prominent US-based activist, Anna Kwok, on April 30, 2025, and charged him with a national security crime, Human Rights Watch said today. The arrest of Kwok Yin-sang was the first such prosecution of a family member of an exiled activist. Hong Kong authorities should immediately drop all charges and release him.
The Hong Kong authorities have recently intensified their harassment of the families of 19 wanted Hong Kong activists living in exile. Punishments and harassment against individuals for the alleged actions of another person is a form of collective punishment, prohibited by international human rights law.
“The Chinese government has increased its appalling use of collective punishment against family members of peaceful activists from Hong Kong,” said Yalkun Uluyol, China researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Hong Kong authorities should immediately and unconditionally release Anna Kwok’s father and cease harassing families of Hong Kong activists.”
On May 2, national security police formally charged Kwok Yin-sang, 68, with “directly or indirectly” dealing with the finances of an “absconder” under section 90 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, which carries a punishment of up to seven years in prison. Kwok Yin-sang remains in custody with a bail hearing scheduled for May 8. Anna Kwok’s brother was also arrested on April 30 but has been released on bail pending further investigation.
Anna Kwok, 28, is the executive director of Hong Kong Democracy Council, a nongovernmental organization based in Washington, DC. In July 2023, she was among a first group of eight people against whom the Hong Kong police issued arrests warrants and HK$1 million (US$129,000) bounties for violating Hong Kong’s National Security Law.
Hong Kong authorities have sought to intimidate dozens of family members of the 19 “wanted” individuals, primarily by interrogating them. In the case of Ted Hui, a resident of Australia, they also confiscated HK$800,000 (US$103,000) from him and his family for having allegedly violated the National Security Law.
There has been a new wave of harassment against these families in recent months, Human Rights Watch said. After the Hong Kong police issued the third group of arrests and bounties against six exiled activists in December 2024, they began to harass their families. In January, police interrogated eight family members and former colleagues of the UK-based scholar Chung Kim-wah, and raided the office of the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute, with which Chung was formerly associated.
In February the police questioned the aunts and an uncle of Carmen Lau, a UK-based activist and former district councilor. On March 18, police interrogated the stepfather of the activist Tony Chung, who is in the UK.
On April 10, national security police took the parents of the US-based activist Frances Hui into custody for questioning.
The 19 wanted activists have also faced various other forms of harassment. In June and December 2024, the Hong Kong government cancelled the passports of 13 wanted activists, including Anna Kwok. In March, Lau and Chung reported that anonymous individuals sent letters to residents in various London neighborhoods urging them to hand in the activists to the Chinese Embassy in London, citing the warrants and bounties against them. Similar letters were sent to Melbourne-based Kevin Yam, a democracy activist and an Australian citizen.
Many of the 19 activists, including Kwok and Frances Hui, have reported online harassment campaigns, including rape and death threats, since the government issued the warrants and bounties against them. The media reported that an online campaign, which exhibited signs of a previous Chinese government influence operation, sought to mobilize far-right people in the UK to attack activists on the bounty list.
The 19 wanted activists live in the UK, US, Canada, and Australia. The US government in March sanctioned six officials in Hong Kong for using the National Security Law “extraterritorially to intimidate, silence, and harass” the activists. The otherthreegovernments have issued statements condemning the arrest warrants, but have not taken action to hold Hong Kong officials accountable. The US government is also the only one that has arrested someone for allegedly harassing a Hong Kong activist on its soil, though the person was later acquitted.
The Chinese government has used two draconian national security laws, the National Security Law of 2020 and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance of 2024, to dismantle the city’s pro-democracy movement and take away its fundamental freedoms, which are enshrined in Hong Kong’s de facto constitution, the Basic Law. Over 200,000 Hong Kongers have left Hong Kong, among them protesters and activists who have continued their activism abroad.
“Beijing isn’t likely to stop abuses against the families of exiled activists unless affected governments send a strong message that such repression carries a cost,” Uluyol said. “They should fully investigate and sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials involved, and pass strong laws to protect their residents and citizens from transnational abuses.”
The second week of witness testimonies continued with the court hearings with Egbert Wesselink and Petter Bolme, two individuals considered central to the broader context of the trial. .. Wesselink provided background on the report’s origins and its significance in bringing the case to light. He also discussed his extensive knowledge of Sudan at the time and his contact with the pre-trial investigation and Lundin oil over the years.
Hearing with Egbert Wesselink
This is a very long report but as the devil in the details……
The second week of witness hearings began with the testimony of individuals who had worked and lobbied for these allegations to be investigated. Egbert Wesselink is a historian working for PAX, the largest peace organization in the Netherlands and the lead author of the report “Unpaid Debt” and involved in the production of the report “Depopulating Sudan’s Oil Regions.”
The prosecution’s questioning focused on Egbert Wesselink’s knowledge of southern Sudan and Block 5A during 1997–2003, his contacts with the Lundin companies during that period, the preparation of the report Depopulating Sudan’s Oil Regions, and his role within PAX and ECOS. He was also questioned about investigation trips to Block 5A and his communication with individuals connected to the pre-trial investigation. During the hearing, Wesselink described the situation in Block 5A during 1997–2003 as highly violent, with conflict over oil-rich areas and systematic or indiscriminate attacks on civilians by the Sudanese military and allied militias. He stated that representatives of the Lundin companies were made aware of these conditions by him from 2000 onward and clarified that PAX and ECOS did not exert undue influence over any interviewees involved in their investigations. Wesselink’s testimony provided crucial context about the violent circumstances in Block 5A and the awareness of these conditions among various actors at the time. It also offered valuable insight into the efforts to document and report the actions of oil companies to the rest of the world, while also highlighting the ongoing pursuit of justice and reparations for the plaintiffs.
The hearing began with Egbert Wesselink talking about his academic background in history and education, early work in politics as an assistant to a member of the Dutch parliament and teaching geography and French, and then his transition into human rights, first as a volunteer, then as a UN officer in Cambodia in 1993. He later worked as researcher and expert for the UN Office for Migration/UNHCR before joining PAX in 1998, where he focused on corporate responsibility and human rights dialogue with various companies. Wesselink recounted his early corporate engagement with the first oil company he worked with, Shell, where alongside Amnesty International he was involved in a dialogue with the company concerning the company’s human rights policies and actions.
PAX and ECOS
In the early 2000s, PAX began working in Sudan, responding to reports of harm caused by the oil industry. After discovering Shell’s ties to Sudan, PAX intervened and discussed the company’s human rights policies and actions, leading to Shell’s withdrawal from the country and its cessation of fuel supplies to the Sudanese air force. Around the same time, Dutch NGOs recognized the need for European-level measures and formed the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS) to address what they saw as the oil industry’s role in fueling conflict and displacement. PAX played a central role in forming and coordinating ECOS, which launched officially in Brussels in 2001. The coalition aimed to stop harmful oil activities and to create a more substantial and effective dialogue between the EU and Sudan. ECOS brought together over 50 European NGOs and produced major advocacy and research efforts. When asked about its contact with Sudanese churches and their influence, Wesselink responded by saying that while not directed by churches, ECOS regularly consulted Sudanese civil society and church groups through forums, but he emphasized that the ECOS acted based on requests from affected communities and their interests and rights, not on top-down instructions.
When asked about how PAX and ECOS formed their understanding of the oil operations and their harmful effects, Wesselink explained how they found important observations by John Harker, who in 1991 conducted a mission for the Canadian government. The conclusions they presented aligned with what PAX and ECOS had heard from local residents, churches, and organizations working in the area. This information was further confirmed by reports from the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan and the findings matched entirely with their prior understanding of how the Sudanese government approached the oil issue. Wesselink also described how he met families from areas north of Lundin’s block, who had been forced to flee to Utrecht. Their testimonies were clear, they had been driven from their homes in one of the country’s central oil regions.
Wesselink described how after the initially unsuccessful “Peace First” campaign, ECOS shifted focus in 2002 to promoting responsible oil business standards. By 2003, it no longer called for companies to leave Sudan but instead advocated for reform within the industry. This aligned with the 2003 peace agreement and Sudan’s transitional constitution, which introduced the possibility of compensation to affected communities and international standards for oil operations. But there was also concern from the church and civil society in Sudan that the government would not be strong enough to push for this against an industry that was uninterested and fear that the government lacked the capacity or will to enforce these standards. To address this, PAX organized a major conference in Juba in late 2006, aiming to create space for dialogue on these governance issues.
When asked about ECOS now, Wesselink explained that ECOS no longer exists, following the separation of Sudan and South Sudan, as focus and momentum declined, and according to Wesselink ECOS “died a slow death.” However, PAX continues working toward justice and compensation for communities affected by oil exploitation.
Wesselink’s engagement and contact with oil companies
Egbert Wesselink described how his understanding of the situation in southern Sudan, particularly Block 5A between 1997 and 2003, developed gradually. He became actively involved around 2000, reading extensively, and his first visit to Sudan was in 2004 for a peace conference in Upper Nile, where he gathered firsthand accounts of problems near major oil fields.
Wesselink explained that contact with oil companies varied. He had early and regular engagement with Shell, including participating in a 2000 conference in Munich, where he also met Lundin and Petronas representatives. He had several conversations with Christine Batruch, the head of Lundin’s corporate social responsibility work, which he described as unproductive, noting her denial of human rights concerns and reliance on Sudanese government narratives. He described how he was used to having discussions with oil companies that were upfront about the facts and willing to discuss dilemmas, as morality is rarely black and white—there were many gray areas in these discussions. However, he said that with Batruch it was impossible to have that kind of conversation as she denied well-established facts and showed very little knowledge about human rights and the responsibilities of companies like Lundin in this regard. He described her as appearing to have a combination of real ignorance and purposeful lack of knowledge. Wesselink explained that it was clear that her knowledge was biased and mainly influenced by northern perspectives, as it was evident that the company was following the Sudanese government’s war propaganda that all conflict stemmed from tribal conflicts. He described it like hearing an echo of what the Sudanese government expressed. While Batruch expressed some openness to hearing from southern Sudanese leaders, Lundin ignored Pax’s invitation to have a dialogue regarding ethical guidelines and the oil industry’s impact on the local population. He also stated that he received no response when he asked Batruch about Lundin’s stance on provisions in the peace agreement, which stated that those affected by oil extraction in southern Sudan had the right to compensation and redress and that those affected by the peace agreement were to be compensated.After that, Wesselink had no further direct contact with Lundin, though he was informed that the Church of Sweden had reached out.
Regarding further contact with Lundin Oil, Wesselink described how in late 2001 he raised concerns about former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt joining Lundin’s board of directors while also being involved with Amnesty Sweden, calling it a conflict of interest. He viewed this dual role as a serious risk to Amnesty’s credibility and structure. Concerned, he wrote to Amnesty International, questioning their cooperation with Lundin. Wesselink explained that he saw it as a great risk for Amnesty to be linked through Bildt with companies accused of serious crimes and that Amnesty should not cooperate with Lundin. However, when he pointed this out, he received a long reply from Carl Bildt defending his involvement, although Wesselink found the arguments factually incorrect. Bildt claimed that Lundin’s presence contributed positively to human rights and peace in the region, which Wesselink strongly refuted, noting that this contradicted all available evidence at the time. He said, “I found these arguments insincere and baseless; they contradicted everything we knew.”
In terms of contact with other companies, Wesselink also engaged with OMV, which was part of the same oil consortium as Lundin. ECOS contacted OMV in 2001, encouraging them to align with international standards. Upon learning more about the situation, OMV’s leadership grew uneasy, especially after commissioning a risk report from the security firm Control Risk Group whose findings raised internal concerns, although they were not a human rights organization. OMV considered halting road construction to Leer due to violence but ultimately yielded to pressure from the Sudanese government. Wesselink noted that OMV often echoed Lundin’s messaging, suggesting coordinated responses.
Preparation of the report “Depopulating Sudan’s Oil Regions”
Regarding the report Depopulating Sudan’s Oil Regions, Wesselink explained that it was based on a 2002 field mission near Block 5A, organized by ECOS and led by Diane de Guzman, with support from journalist Julie Flint. The team flew into the area from Kenya and documented extensive violence and interviewed traumatized civilians. Julie Flint had a camera with her, and they made a short ten-minute film that can still be seen on YouTube, and which they also distributed via the ECOS network. The trip, financed by ECOS, targeted areas near Block 5A and Nhialdiu, where alarming reports of renewed violence were surfacing. The goal was to document these events, recognizing that without credible information, international concern would be lacking. The field data, interviews, and visual evidence were then compiled into a comprehensive report. De Guzman drafted the original document, which included interviews, high-level analysis, and contextual information, but the report itself was then written by Wesselink. The report included interviews, analysis, background on the conflict, and references to arms use and oil revenue.
Unpaid Debt
After 2004, Wesselink and ECOS continued working to ensure oil companies took responsibility for the harm caused during Sudan’s oil conflict. Wesselink believed that Lundin had no real interest in implementing the 2003 peace agreement’s compensation clauses, while his and the Sudanese church’s goal was to make the agreement a success by pushing for reparations. Wesselink recalls that the Sudanese Minister of Justice at the time said, “If there are affected people, they can take their cases to court,” and that became the starting point for assessing the financial damages incurred over the years, followed by lobbying the oil companies to pay these costs. It also became the start for Unpaid Debt as the objective was not only focused on good business practices, but also on ensuring the “debt” was paid.
The prosecution moved on to inquire about the Unpaid Debt report and the individuals involved in its creation. Wesselink explained that he was the main author of the report but had assistance from numerous assistants and received advice and input from others. They also hired a British defamation lawyer to review the report because when the report was finalized in 2008 and sent to Lundin for comments, Lundin’s response, which came via their lawyers, was to claim that the report contained false information that was damaging to the company. They alleged the intent was to harm the company and reserved the right to claim damages. According to Wesselink, such responses are standard tactics companies use when they are unwilling to resolve issues and prefer confrontation instead. This legal threat caused panic among members of ECOS, with the majority of the core group reluctant to risk being taken to court. A smaller faction of members remained undeterred and wanted to move forward with the publication under the condition that the report would be reviewed by a British lawyer due to the UK’s strict defamation laws. This ensured the report’s legal soundness but also resulted in more legally influenced language, which Wesselink speculated might have contributed to the current situation.
The prosecutor then moved on and asked about the recent claims that the photographs in the report were mislabeled regarding the location of where they were taken — Riel in Thar Jath versus Riel in Mankien. Wesselink acknowledged he wasn’t involved in taking the photos and relied on photographers from DanChurch Aid and others. While he could not verify their accuracy, he expressed trust in their work and admitted to being slightly surprised by any alleged mistakes and stated he would be embarrassed if the defense’s claims were proven correct. Despite this, Wesselink maintained that such potential errors would not diminish the report’s overall reliability.
The organization of investigation trips to and near Block 5A
Wesselink was also asked by the prosecution about the organization of investigation trips to Block 5A. These missions were conducted in cooperation with the Sudan Council of Churches and aimed to assess damage and pressure companies for accountability. If companies didn’t respond, findings were intended for the Evaluation and Assessment Committee, which included representatives from the U.S., U.K., and Norway. As a last resort, civil lawsuits were considered. The trips required extensive preparation due to the political sensitivity surrounding oil-related matters. Wesselink mentioned the need to seek support and endorsements for the research from state authorities, the UN, and local chiefs to facilitate the investigation. He also explained how one couldn’t simply go somewhere and “start asking questions about oil” because it was politically sensitive. His role was therefore to travel down to seek support for this work from the local chiefs.
Contacts with the pre-trial investigation
The prosecutor turned its focus to Wesselink’s personal connections to individuals linked to the pre-trial investigation. Wesselink explained that he had limited direct involvement with the pre-trial investigation, having been interviewed twice by Swedish police and attending two meetings with prosecutors. Most contact was minimal, with only some email correspondence. His own involvement with the trial began after civil war broke out in Juba in 2013, where it became nearly impossible for the Swedish authorities to access witnesses. Wesselink and his colleagues suspected the authorities needed help to find witnesses and offered assistance, but the response from the police was vague and Wesselink described them as “mussels” who did not say anything. Wesselink said that they received similar responses from the prosecutors, stating that he and his colleagues had the right to share information that may be helpful to the investigation with the Prosecutor’s Office. However, they did not receive instructions, although the previous prosecutor Magnus Elving did provide general advice stating that witnesses should only be interviewed by the police and should not be guided or influenced in any way.
Believing that firsthand testimony would be crucial to the case, Wesselink and Petter Bolme hired journalist Moses Urhailot in early 2015 to identify witnesses and possible perpetrators in refugee camps across Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, and Khartoum. Moses had also contacted people who testified in the earlier Talisman case, as some were willing to engage. Moses was instructed to collect only basic contact info and ensure that witnesses were not influenced. Despite identifying 54 potential witnesses, Wesselink believed that only one was eventually used by prosecutors. According to Wesselink, this stark result underscored the failure of their objective to identify individuals willing to testify.
ECOS’s work in South Sudan and Leech Victim Voices
The final part of the prosecution’s questioning addressed the relationship ECOS had with various groups in South Sudan, focusing on interactions following the publication of the Unpaid Debt report. After the report was published, ECOS began receiving more interest from groups in South Sudan. One such group, Leech Victim Voices, was formed by victims seeking justice after being ignored by both Lundin and the South Sudanese government. Wesselink attended their founding meeting in Juba in 2016. Their demands were later published on PAX’s website, and in 2017, Wesselink presented their claims at Lundin’s shareholders’ meeting. He noted Lundin had already been aware of these claims, having warned him in 2013 against making public accusations.
Wesselink stressed that the claims made by the victims were not driven by a desire for monetary compensation but by the pursuit of justice and truth. He emphasized that remedy and reparation as legal concepts must begin with uncovering the truth. This sentiment was echoed in the efforts of Leech Victim Voices, whose primary goal was to ensure that their experiences and demands were heard. He shared the story of Andrew Jagei Hon Diet, a plaintiff who fled Juba after threats and the murder of his neighbor, believing it was meant as a message for him. PAX helped him escape with Petter Bolme’s assistance. Similar threats were reported by others, including former Lundin employees, who claimed they were pressured to testify in the company’s favor. Wesselink and his team took these reports seriously and, with help from regional human rights organizations, relocated witnesses to safety. The details of these incidents were communicated to Swedish authorities and later shared with the plaintiffs’ counsels.
The plaintiffs’ counsel
After the prosecution’s interrogation, Percy Bratt, one of the plaintiffs’ counsels, had a few questions for Egbert Wesselink. The first topic concerned Wesselink’s efforts to warn plaintiffs to be cautious about discussing potential compensation. Wesselink confirmed that he had done so, elaborating on the cultural distinctions within Nuer legal practices. He explained that while similar to Western legal systems in principle, Nuer culture focuses on reconciliation rather than revenge. For the Nuer, an admission of guilt must be accompanied by a gesture of compensation and amends to the injured party. As a result, it is difficult for someone from the Nuer culture to comprehend a criminal case that excludes reparation or compensation. However, Wesselink emphasized that this cultural expectation does not imply material motivation on the part of the victims, whose ultimate pursuit is justice.
When asked about the driving force behind the victims’ participation, Wesselink clarified that their primary focus is truth and recognition, which are essential prerequisites for reconciliation. This universal principle of law in the Nuer belief system is that those who cause harm must take steps to reconcile it. Wesselink noted that for the Nuer, reconciliation holds more significance than punitive measures, and their efforts to share their experiences often come at great personal expense.
Bratt shifted to the topic of the Unpaid Debt report and inquired whether Wesselink and his team perceived threats of a lawsuit by Lundin Oil. Wesselink affirmed this, talking about the likelihood of a defamation lawsuit arising from the report, which the company argued had caused damage to its reputation. As mentioned in the prosecution’s questioning, PAX hired a British lawyer as the UK defamation law, which places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate that their statements were not defamatory, was the strictest. The lawyer reviewed the report to ensure the accuracy of its claims and their alignment with legal standards.
Wesselink also addressed the defense’s claim that the plaintiffs’ statements amounted to SPLA propaganda. He refuted this notion and cautioned against overestimating the political cohesion of SPLA or SPLM, describing SPLA as a predominantly military operation with no unified political line. He highlighted the absence of a coherent political framework within SPLA or SPLM capable of orchestrating such false testimony.
Andreas Sjögren, the other plaintiffs’ counsel present during this hearing, asked a series of questions about Wesselink’s meeting with Christine Batruch at the Milhauim Conference in late December 2000. Wesselink recalled informing Batruch about the disturbing news of human rights violations linked to oil operations, which was a provocative issue tied to the conference’s theme of Corporate Social Responsibility. While Batruch acknowledged the correlation between oil work and abuses like forced displacement, Wesselink found her understanding of human rights lacking. He explained that Batruch emphasized international law and corporate responsibilities without grasping the fundamental processes that define rights. The conversation was described as awkward, with Wesselink pointing out what he believed should be common knowledge for corporate representatives. He again criticized Batruch for combining ignorance with a willful lack of awareness, further noting that her sources were limited and biased.
Lastly, Sjögren asked whether Lundin had the opportunity to respond to the Unpaid Debt report. Wesselink explained that the report was not intended as a lobbying tool against specific companies but noted that Lundin’s response contained falsehoods and lacked counterarguments. Lundin claimed to have refuted accusations made in the Scorched Earth report by Christian Aid through its own report produced in 2001. However, Wesselink questioned the validity of this defense, as Lundin’s report only covered a brief timeframe and failed to address accusations that spanned years.
Cross-Examination by the defense
The defense started their cross examination by asking Wesselink who actually was behind the police report filed regarding suspected violations of international law linked to Lundin Oil’s operations in Sudan. They asked about the police report dated 17 May 2010. This report, submitted by the plaintiffs’ counsels, Percy Bratt’s law firm, requested an investigation into suspected war crimes. Among the attachments to this report was Wesselink’s Unpaid Debt report, which had been submitted on behalf of ECOS and himself to the International Prosecutor’s Office. Samuelsson pointed out a contradiction in Wesselink’s statement, as Wesselink had previously claimed that Sten De Geer was responsible for submitting the report. Sten De Geer is the person who filed one of the police reports regarding Lundin’s activities in Sudan, based upon the book “Affärer i blod och olja” by Kerstin Lundell. Acknowledging the discrepancy, Wesselink clarified that while others may have been involved in the process, he was ultimately the one who submitted it. Wesselink explained that submitting the report was initially intended as a way to inform prosecutors, not to file a formal police report, as ECOS’s original aim was to achieve justice for victims through political, rather than legal, processes. The publication of the Unpaid Debt report was intended to prompt South Sudanese victims to file criminal complaints independently.
Samuelsson then raised concerns about Percy Bratt’s dual roles, suggesting that Bratt’s prior representation of ECOS and current role as plaintiffs’ counsel might pose ethical issues. Wesselink dismissed these concerns, explaining that Bratt stopped representing ECOS well before taking up the plaintiffs’ case and that there was no conflict of interest.
Shareholder status in Lundin Energy
Turning to Wesselink’s shareholder status in Orrön Energy, Samuelsson highlighted what he perceived as a contradiction between Wesselink’s critique of Lundin and his ownership of shares in the company. Wesselink explained that he purchased five shares in Lundin Energy in 2010 in order to be able to engage directly with the company’s management and shareholders. His objective was to use his status as a shareholder to urge the company to respect international law and ethical business guidelines. He defended this approach as a legitimate and widely practiced method for advocacy, particularly in the United States, Canada, and Europe. At these meetings, Wesselink explained his proposals and urged Lundin to assess the human rights impact of their operations and to take responsibility, including paying reparations if harms were found. While he couldn’t recall exact figures, he confirmed that he proposed allocating funds to demonstrate goodwill toward those affected. He also advocated for the resignation of the company’s management, asserting that it was not in Lundin’s best interest to be led by individuals suspected of war crimes.
Samuelsson questioned whether Wesselink had demanded five million dollars in damages at a shareholder meeting. Wesselink clarified that he had proposed that a sum of money be allocated specifically for compensating those affected. He argued that the company’s approach failed to consider the broader consequences of their legal strategy and urged them to correct their practices to better align with international principles and standards. Wesselink maintained that his actions, whether as a shareholder or through his involvement in advocacy, were aimed at achieving justice and accountability for victims, while upholding ethical guidelines for corporate behavior. He said that had the company’s leadership adopted his proposals, the outcome could have been better both for the company and for those harmed. He also pointed out that Lundin Energy no longer exists, suggesting a different approach might have changed that trajectory. Wesselink also criticized Lundin’s defense lawyers for adopting an overly aggressive legal strategy, arguing that it delayed justice for victims and contradicted the principles of human rights the company had publicly endorsed.
When asked about PAX and their neutrality, Wesselink firmly denied that PAX sided with any party in Sudan’s civil war, calling it a “strange question to ask a peace organization” and explained that supporting peace in a conflict does not entail choosing sides. He acknowledged that neutrality in conflict zones can be difficult, as any action taken by a peace organization may be interpreted as supporting or opposing one side but said that PAX maintained professional impartiality.
The 2019 Svenska Dagbladet article and SPLA Update
Samulsson continued by asking Wesselink about Jan Gruiters, who Wesselink described as the former general director of PAX and a good friend of his. Samuelsson referenced a 2019 opinion piece in the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet calling for reparations from Lundin, which Jan Gruiters co-signed. The defense asked whether Wesselink was familiar with SPLA Update, to which Wesselink answered that he did not read this kind of information from the SPLA. Samuelsson then mentioned that Jan Gruiters wrote articles for SPLA Update and questioned whether PAX and had links to SPLA Update. Wesselink denied any connection and instead discussed how even neutral reporting can be exploited by conflicting parties. Wesselink reiterated that he could not explain why the article appeared in SPLA Update but emphasized that neutrality does not prevent information from being used for one party’s benefit, and that this should not deter individuals from speaking the truth.
Carl Bildt’s email
The defense then presented an email from former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt, in which he criticized Wesselink for forwarding allegations of systematic human rights violations by Lundin to Amnesty International. Wesselink expressed surprise that Bildt had responded at all and stated that Amnesty shared his position regarding Sudan, making Bildt’s involvement in the organization ironic and noteworthy. He viewed Bildt’s response as an effort to deflect substantive discussions by portraying the conflict as tribal disputes. Samuelsson then asked how Wesselink could dismiss the accounts of Lundin staff who were on-site. Wesselink rebutted this, stating the area was experiencing violent clashes at the time Bildt described it as “calm.” He pointed to Nuer defections that intensified conflict and claimed the region was a “bloodbath.” He also noted that Lundin ceased operations shortly after Bildt’s letter, contradicting Bildt’s portrayal of peace. Wesselink described how the violence at the time was widely anticipated and criticized Bildt for failing to acknowledge the reality of the conflict. Wesselink described Carl Bildt’s interpretation as a reversal of reality, attributing it to state propaganda efforts to justify atrocities.
Criticism of Christine Batruch
The defense then addressed Wesselink’s characterization of Christine Batruch, Lundin’s representative, as a “propagandist” for the Sudanese regime. Samuelsson challenged this label, noting Wesselink had never been in Sudan during the relevant period, to which Wesselink replied, “Do you have to have been to a place to be convinced? I’ve never been to Ukraine, but I know there’s a terrible war happening.” He criticized Batruch for dismissing credible reports and for not answering questions about local conditions. Wesselink explained that he relied on the accounts of knowledgeable individuals and experts, whose information he deemed credible, and had suggested to Batruch that Lundin should collaborate with groups outside the Sudanese government to gain a broader understanding of the situation.
Samuelsson pressed Wesselink on whether his information could be considered objective, given that he had not personally witnessed these events. Wesselink responded again that he relied on a wide range of expert reports, field studies, and testimony from displaced people. He acknowledged the importance of source criticism and said he had engaged critically with the materials he reviewed yet found no reason to doubt the integrity of the core information he used.
Discrepancies between photos in Unpaid Debt Report
Samuelsson then focused on errors in photo captions in the Unpaid Debt report. Wesselink admitted to possible confusion over locations with the same name, specifically “Rier” but emphasized that any mistakes were unintentional. Samuelsson pressed further, noting that the report gave the impression that burned huts photographed in the village of Rier were in areas where Lundin operated. Wesselink acknowledged the misleading impression but reiterated that Lundin did not operate directly in that village. He admitted potential errors and commended the defense for spotting them, saying corrections should be made if verified. When Samuelsson questioned whether Wesselink had known about discrepancies in photograph captions dating back to an email from 2018, Wesselink admitted he had asked the photographer for the locations but did not connect the two photographs to their respective names at the time. Though embarrassed by the issue, he stressed that it did not undermine the overall integrity of the report and firmly stated there was no intent to mislead and apologized if the captions were incorrect.
When shown the version of the report which was sent as a copy in the police report discussed earlier, the photo had another caption, which the defense then questioned, stating that Wesselink must have realized that the caption was wrong and altered it. However, Wesselink denied making any deliberate changes. He explained that the confusion might stem from the commonality of village names and the challenges of recalling specific details from among hundreds of locations.
Identifying witnesses and contact with the investigation
The defense moved on, asking questions about Wesselink’s interactions with Swedish prosecutors and police, including emails referring to their collaboration as a “complete failure.” Samuelsson read aloud emails exchanged between police, prosecutors, and Wesselink, asking whether he had received a formal written request for information. Wesselink could not recall receiving such a request but remembered that police and prosecutors had indicated they welcomed any information that could strengthen their suspicions. He clarified that they worked under general guidance to avoid jeopardizing the investigation. Their role was always to support—not lead—the prosecution.
Samuelsson questioned whether Wesselink considered himself suitable to lead the witness identification process. Wesselink replied that the prosecutor was free to use or reject his findings. Asked about Moses, Wesselink explained he was a journalist known for navigating the sensitive political landscape in South Sudan and was considered neutral. Wesselink believed this neutrality made Moses well-suited for the assignment. When asked about Moses’s attitude toward the Sudanese and Khartoum regimes, Wesselink replied that they had never discussed it.
Regarding whether Moses had used a questionnaire form when approaching potential witnesses, Wesselink replied that they didn’t believe so, describing the process as more of a general approach to providing information. He explained that Moses had been tasked with identifying prospective witnesses, as well visiting various areas to gather support from villages, asking them to sign forms as a show of support, and compiling names. He admitted he had no oversight over Moses’s forms and was not familiar with the specifics of how Moses gathered testimonies. The defense then asked questions regarding the list that Moses’s work resulted in. Wesselink explained that they sent the list of names to the prosecutors but did not know much more about what it resulted in. He explained how their work continued with gathering and recording an incident list of threats and violence reported by some of the witnesses and plaintiffs, which they sent to the authorities. Wesselink clarified that they had been contacted by former Lundin employees who reported being threatened by a former security manager for Lundin. Some of these individuals reached out to Wesselink for guidance, which resulted in a report on the threats and violence, which was subsequently forwarded to authorities. Many of these individuals eventually became plaintiffs. Wesselink stressed that it wasn’t PAX and ECOS who sought them out, but rather Lundin, whose actions led them to approach PAX and ECOS.
Failure of peace campaign and EU ambassadors’ visit to Sudan
Schneiter’s defense team finished their questioning and Ian Lundin’s defense team took over. Their part of the hearing opened with a question about why the 2003 campaign driven by ECOS and Pax to align oil with peace had failed. Wesselink explained that the ECOS strategy included suspending oil operations and advocating for human rights benchmarks in the EU–Sudan dialogue. However, according to Wesselink, the EU–Sudan dialogue was ineffective, often serving as diplomatic cover for improving relations with Sudan while avoiding real human rights scrutiny. When the discussion turned to a visit by EU ambassadors to Sudan in 2001, including Block 5A, and why it didn’t alter the EU’s stance, Wesselink described the mission as superficial, recalling conversations with a Dutch colleague who believed it was designed to avoid meaningful follow-up. Wesselink noted that there was a strong political desire within the EU to continue and strengthen constructive engagement with Sudan, driven by economic opportunities for European countries, particularly in light of the US sanctions on Sudan. Regarding the report generated after the mission, Wesselink explained that it resulted in mixed results and expressed surprise that the report had been used as evidence to suggest everything was fine in the region. While it concluded that the visit did not provide evidence of displacement, the report later acknowledged that there was evidence suggesting the Sudanese government had armed militias and used its own forces to protect the oil fields. Wesselink highlighted that the ambassadors had been given a guided tour by Talisman, during which they were shown only favorable conditions. When asked whether the report accurately reflected the region’s situation, Wesselink said it offered a balanced summary, but the timing of the visit in May 2001 was misleading as it occurred during a brief lull in violence, when the government had temporarily secured control and civilians could move around. Thus, displacement wasn’t visible.
Wesselink acknowledged that some of the report’s findings about militias were accurate but emphasized that the that the report was excessive in its defense of oil activities and failed to connect them directly to human rights abuses, either through oversight or by design. When questioned about whether the EU delegation had done a proper job, Wesselink clarified that the diplomats had framed their actions in a diplomatic manner and were doing their job as they believed was right and emphasized that it was true that the delegation had not seen any evidence of displacement at the time because of the timing. The defense had no further questions, and the cross-examination concluded.
Next week In our next report, we will cover the testimony of Petter Bolme.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 