Yesterday The Sunday Times published a bizarre article entitled Death crash and 'secret UK arms deals' in which it reports apparent allegations that Lifeguard, Sandline's sister company providing security services to commercial organisations, had supplied "tens of thousands of pounds worth of weapons to rebels in Sierra Leone" and that "The munitions were allegedly part of a deal struck with the rebels to allow a British firm to continue diamond mining unhindered in the war-torn region." The article also suggests that the person who made the allegations, an ex-employee of Lifeguard who was killed in a car crash in South Africa last year, had been in fear of his life because of "what he knew" and that his death was shrouded in mysterious circumstances.
These allegations are total nonsense but, because they have been reported by a reputable newspaper which did not even take the trouble to contact either Lifeguard or Sandline before publishing the story, we have decided to comment on them in order to set the record straight.
1 The ex-employee of Lifeguard embroiled in these spurious allegations, Johan "Shorty" van Zyl, had been a loyal and professional company employee who had previously served in the SADF engineer corps not, as claimed by The Sunday Times, as an intelligence officer. Mr van Zyl was the senior member of the Lifeguard team contracted to provide security at a client site in Kono, the contentious diamond district in Sierra Leone, where he had been instrumental in organising the evacuation of many civilians, both expatriates and locals, who could otherwise have been killed or taken hostage by the rebels. Mr van Zyl left the company's employ a little over two years' ago a few months after Lifeguard was forced to withdraw its personnel from Kono under threat of heavily armed attack by a growing concentration of rebel forces gathering there following their forced ejection by government troops, who were advised by Sandline, from Freetown.
2 There was never any ill-feelings between Mr van Zyl and the executive management of Lifeguard (or Sandline) and friendly relations were maintained after he had left the company and started work for a timber business in South Africa. The article reports that Mr van Zyl complained that he "began to fear for his life" but, curiously, only draws a connection between this and the allegations it makes against Lifeguard by innuendo.
3 The "woman" driving the car at the time Mr van Zyl was killed was, in fact, his wife. It was subsequently alleged she had told the authorities she had fallen asleep at the wheel and that police reports confirmed she had a high level of alcohol in her bloodstream (as did Mr van Zyl), although we understand that no prosecution was ever brought against her. If the allegations are true then these factors would undoubtedly have been material contributors to the unfortunate and fatal car crash.
4 The Sunday Times allegation that "munitions were allegedly [supplied by Lifeguard as] part of a deal struck with the rebels to allow a British firm [named later in the article to be Branch Energy] to continue diamond mining unhindered in the war-torn region" does not make sense because no overseas company was mining diamonds in the country at the time. Furthermore, even preliminary exploration work which (essentially) precedes any commercial mining operations, was halted in the Spring of 1997 and all expatriate mining personnel evacuated shortly thereafter as a result of the then dire security conditions brought about by a rebel coup led by the AFRC and supported by the RUF.
5 Branch Energy (a subsidiary of a Toronto Stock Exchange listed mining company) had been undertaking exploration work in Sierra Leone up to the time of the 1997 coup and thereafter we understand made public its withdrawal from the country as a result of the worsening security conditions. Their personnel had been evacuated as stated above and all inward investment reportedly frozen. The only mining that continued after their forced withdrawal was illegal diggings undertaken by hand by rebel soldiers and local civilians coerced to do so under their control.
6 Neither the numerous press reports over the past three years of illicit mining activities undertaken by the RUF nor the official reports compiled by UN representatives examining "conflict diamonds" have ever suggested that any international companies, including Branch Energy, had been mining in the area whilst it has been under rebel control. In fact, we understand that much of the mining companies' earthmoving fleets and processing plants has been destroyed or damaged beyond repair either deliberately or during the course of fighting between government and rebel troops, thereby making mining impossible even if the security situation was not itself untenable.
7 Curiously, the article does not put forward a single witness to the alleged diamond mining activities undertaken by the then Canadian-based Branch Energy, which it incorrectly describes as "a British firm". If such mining was being carried out then clearly there would be a number of expatriates involved and it would not be too difficult for The Sunday Times to identify at least one of these people. The newspaper's difficulty arises because there were no such mining operations and, therefore, no such expatriates exist.
8 We understand that during the course of the period in 1997 to 1998 that the rebels had effective control over the whole country, including the capital Freetown, approaches were made to Branch Energy inviting them to return and re-commence their mining operations. Branch Energy apparently made it quite clear that they could not entertain such a proposal and would not be able to return to the country until the duly democratically elected government was reinstated.
9 The article does not suggest any rationale explaining why Sandline would be working closely with the exiled and internationally recognised government of Sierra Leone whilst its sister company, Lifeguard, is allegedly simultaneously supplying weapons to the very rebels that government forces would be seeking to defeat. The notion simply defies logic.
10 Neither Sandline nor Lifeguard has ever procured or supplied "anti-personnel and anti-tank mines" to the government of Sierra Leone, let alone the rebel forces as alleged. To-date, as far as we are aware, there has not been a single instance of the use of mines being reported in Sierra Leone. This is yet another inaccuracy which discredits the report.
11 The article states that "Van Zyl kept a meticulous log of his dealings .... It describes how, after he was dismissed in October 1998, he confronted a Sandline executive and intimated that he planned to make public what he knew. After a long pause, the Sandline executive allegedly said: "I'm surprised at you, Johan." Although a minor point, the credibility of this statement is brought into question by the fact that Mr van Zyl was known to everyone he worked with as "Shorty". No-one ever called him "Johan". And who is this anonymous "Sandline executive"?
12 Whilst weapons were allegedly being handed over to the rebels, heavily outnumbered Lifeguard personnel under contract at the Bumbuna hydroelectric dam project in Sierra Leone (an area now occupied by government troops) were repelling heavily armed attacks by rebel groups seeking to destroy the facility. In addition, a number of Lifeguard personnel were deployed at client installations in various parts of the country nominally under rebel control and, because of their unique access to information about the rebels' movements and activities, they were able to pass on valuable and welcome intelligence to government forces in Freetown to help them prosecute the war against them. This is hardly compatible with the actions of a company allegedly assisting these very same rebels.
13 At the height of the coup in Sierra Leone, shortly before the rebels took control of Freetown, the manager of Lifeguard's operations in the capital decided to relocate his base to neighbouring Guinea. He informed the commanders of the Sierra Leone army of his intention to do so and asked them to secure the company's authorised weapons inventory (for issue to company personnel when working at client installations) then stored in a sealed armoury on Lifeguard's premises. Despite numerous requests the promised assistance was not forthcoming and a small cache of weapons had to be abandoned at the last moment. These were seized by the rebels when they ransacked the property after Lifeguard had evacuated its headquarters personnel to Guinea.
14 The key point is that at no time did Lifeguard or any company associated with it voluntarily provide any weapons or materiel to the rebel groups in Sierra Leone. Tim Spicer, Sandline's former chief executive, put this succinctly in an interview with The Sunday Times which paraphrased his comments that "no weapons were handed over voluntarily to the rebels, though he said it was possible that munitions intended for use by Lifeguard personnel had been captured." This is an entirely accurate reflection of the facts.
The Sunday Times should know better than to publish a highly sensationalised article riddled with innuendo, inaccuracy and "allegations" without taking the trouble to check its facts and confirm the validity of the accusations made to it by unnamed sources. At the very least, the journalists concerned should extend the professional courtesy of contacting current officials of the companies they intend to accuse.
This article casts a slur on both Sandline and Lifeguard's reputations; two companies which have striven (under great public scrutiny after the event) to provide assistance and support to the legitimate government of Sierra Leone at a time when the very future of democracy in that country was in doubt. In the course of this these companies' employees have put their lives at risk and, at times, prices were publicly put on the heads of some of the key people by the rebel leaders. It is inexcusable for The Sunday Times to publish such a scurrilous and ill-informed article which is clearly intended to discredit the companies and their efforts.