In December 2024 and January 2025, Ian Lundin underwent twelve days of cross-examination. His performance in the courtroom, marked by evasive responses and selective recollections, neither bolstered the prosecution’s case nor did it disprove the core allegations at the heart of the case against him.
From the outset, it was clear that Ian Lundin had been meticulously prepared by his legal team — a fact hardly surprising, given that his company, Lundin/Orrön Energy, has already spent tens of millions of euros on the case. Every answer he gave was in line with his lawyers’ strategy, presenting a version of events that omitted any facts which would undermine his defence. Even though the prosecution struggled to elicit concrete answers to his many pertinent questions, Ian Lundin still has plenty to worry about.
In 2024, testimony from 30 South Sudanese witnesses strongly supported the prosecution’s central claim: that the Sudanese military and its allied militias systematically committed war crimes. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to further demonstrate that Ian Lundin and Alex Schneiter:
- were aware of the involvement of the Sudanese military and militias in these war crimes,
- exerted significant influence over his company’s operations and its relationship with Sudanese authorities, and
- actively supported these crimes by requesting military interventions to protect the company’s operations, sharing strategic plans with the government, and financing infrastructure projects that facilitated these atrocities.
If the prosecution can establish these points, the two suspects face convictions.
Ian Lundin denied all three allegations, insisting that he had no knowledge of war crimes. He even went so far as to claim that there was no civil war in the region and dismissed reports of attacks on civilians as “misinformation from NGOs.”
In his testimony, Ian Lundin attempted to convince the court that he had only scant knowledge of Sudan, pretending unawareness of realities that were essential for his company’s success. This portrayal seemed at odds with evidence that he was actively involved in high-level discussions about critical political and security matters.
When the prosecution presented evidence showing that Lundin had read and discussed reports documenting war crimes, he responded that it is impossible to fully understand conflicts in Africa, and pointed to another report from a May 2001 visit by the EU Heads of Mission. He believes that it exonerates him because – after having been shown around for two days by the oil companies Talisman and Lundin, and visiting villages under Government control for a third day – the EU diplomats had found no evidence of large-scale campaigns by the Government to drive people out of their villages. However, they also noted the Government’s use of militias to defend oil concessions and its lack of concern for gross human rights violations committed by these militia’s, including “ … burning houses, looting, stealing of cattle, killing and abduction of women and boys.” They also observed that oil companies, including Lundin, were in communication and cooperation with the Sudanese military. This is central to the allegations against Ian Lundin: that the Government of Sudan perpetrated atrocities in the interests of oil extraction and with support from his company.
When questioned by his defence lawyers, Ian Lundin’s memory improved spectacularly, now recalling small details about specific meetings 25 years ago. His conspicuously selective memory, combined with evidence that crucial information had reached him, may lead the court to question his claims of ignorance.
Ian Lundin portrayed his company’s structure as “flat,” with a culture of trust and minimal oversight, suggesting that he was not deeply involved in day-to-day security or political matters. “As long as the budget and programme were in line with the contract with Sudan, I had no input”, he explained. He distanced himself from key decisions such as work plans, tenders, and major contracts and could not explain who at corporate headquarters was responsible for addressing the constant flow of information coming from Sudan. Such a rickety management culture would be quite unique for an international oil corporation.
It remains to be seen whether Ian Lundin’s former employees, who are set to testify later in the year as witnesses for the defence, will substantiate his claims that they, not the CEO, called the shots in Sudan. But even if they confirm his portrayal, substantial doubts remain about the credibility of his role as a CEO so oblivious to the workings of his company.
Ian Lundin rejected the notion that his company’s security arrangements, or its sharing of work plans with the Sudanese military, had any detrimental impact on civilians. On the contrary, he argued that the company’s presence had brought significant benefits to Sudan. While acknowledging that oil played a role in fuelling violence in the region, he claimed that the violence was driven by pre-existing inter-ethnic disputes and had little to do with his company’s activities.
When confronted with evidence of large-scale offensives by Government forces, he stuck rigidly to his lawyers’ line of defence that the government military interventions had been benign and solely intended to restore peace and stability. He dismissed all contrary evidence as biased or mere opinions. His assertions clashed with the testimonies of South Sudanese plaintiffs, who had painted a starkly different picture of the impact of Lundin’s activities on their lives.
In a final exchange with Thomas Bodström, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Ian Lundin was asked whether he would concede that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation if he would be convicted. He declined to comment, before being pressed on a €45,000 security deposit he had required from each plaintiff in order to pursue damages — effectively closing the door on any compensation claims, as none of them can pay such a sum. Ian Lundin responded by highlighting the tens of millions of euros that his company had spent on the case. He emphasized the personal toll the legal proceedigns had taken on him over the past 15 years and that he believes that a €45,000 security deposit is low in comparison to his own personal suffering.
Ian Lundin’s calm and preparedness made an impression. However, whether his performance has successfully deflected the weight of the allegations against him remains doubtful.
For more reports from the courthouse, see Civil Rights Defenders here and Blanksspot here.
