In essence, The Sunday Times says it has seen various documents and heard audio tapes compiled by Johan van Zyl underpinning the first two of the allegations. However, only a handful of papers have been shown to us and we have not heard or seen transcripts of any alleged audio tapes. Of Mr van Zyl's "meticulous log" to which The Sunday Times referred in the article, the only third party document we have been shown makes a solitary reference on two lines to an alleged and unsubstantiated supply of arms reported within a lengthy note in Afrikaans, which appears to be a fax on which the sender's and recipient's names and the date have been redacted. Furthermore, this unsigned note does not state that it was Lifeguard who allegedly supplied the weapons nor does it include or refer to any evidence justifying the claim that such a supply was made. We have proved to The Sunday Times that this delivery is completely unknown to Lifeguard and, furthermore, that it would have been physically impossible to ship, truck and deliver a container load of weapons inside Sierra Leone at the time in question due to severe logistical constraints.

We have confirmed to The Sunday Times that Lifeguard did abandon a small cache of weapons when they had no option but to withdraw forcibly from their client's minesite under threat of an imminent massed attack by rebel forces intent on killing all the team members. This came to light as a result of maintaining a sensible and effective but low-key and passive liaison with the local commanders of the rebel forces who, as a result, provided advance warning and allowed the team to make an emergency evacuation, albeit insisting that their weapons be left behind. However, we have tried without success on numerous occasions to draw the clear distinction for The Sunday Times between abandoning equipment under duress and voluntarily handing it over to facilitate unsavoury commercial aims.

After pressing The Sunday Times to provide the source or basis of their allegation of continued mining activities, and having produced copious notes and backing documents, including contemporaneous press statements, detailing the cessation of all these activities at Branch Energy's sites immediately following the AFRC coup on 25 May 1997, they revealed to us that this allegation in fact related to the supposed continuation of operations at a minor alluvial diamond concession operated under a joint venture with a third party who actually held the mining rights. In response, we produced detailed information demonstrating that Branch Energy and Lifeguard physically withdrew all personnel from that concession on 27 May 1997, two days' after the coup. The joint venture partner decided to continue to operate the concession as was his right despite the fact that neither Branch Energy nor Lifeguard were willing to provide any support or assistance.

The Sunday Times' extraordinary response to our extensive and detailed rebuttals to the weapons and mining allegations has been to say that maintaining any form of co-operation with the AFRC "whether that was to save lives or keep the AFRC sweet is largely a matter of semantics"! Curious therefore that their article used the words "supplied ... weapons ... to allow … diamond mining", thus presenting a very different picture than that of simply abandoning these weapons under duress, thereby giving the reader the disingenuous impression of an immoral (and potentially illegal) degree of connivance. The journalist's choice of words is not simply "a matter of semantics".

On the question of the supposed suspicious circumstances surrounding Mr van Zyl's death, Alastair Brett, The Sunday Times' Legal Manager, wrote in late March this year that: "the Editor is … happy to publish something along the following lines about Shorty's death in South Africa. It must however be in full and final settlement of all aspects of your complaint as he is not prepared to return to the original article on a piece meal basis". The text offered by Mr Brett reads: "Our report, "Death Crash and "secret arms deals" (Nov 19, 2000) may have suggested that "Shorty" van Zyl, who worked for a UK security firm was "ambushed and murdered because he knew too much about arms supplied by British companies to rebel soldiers" in Sierra Leone. While "Shorty" was concerned about his safety, we now understand that the crash in which he died in South Africa was clearly an accident."

This proposed "clarification statement", which we have refused to accept in place of a composite correction incorporating the other principal allegations, came as no surprise after we furnished a sworn statement, dated 8 February 2001, from Mr van Zyl's wife, who had been driving the car when her husband had been killed, in which she states: "I lost control over the vehicle, crashed into the back of a truck, crossed the partition strip between the lanes and came to a stop on the other side of the motorway. Shorty at that moment was asleep next to me and died on impact. There were no "suspicious" circumstances before or after the accident, and I fail to see how "foul play" could be suspected and insinuated under these circumstances." Interestingly, she went on to say: "Shorty has never mentioned to me that his life was in danger and that he was suspecting an attempt on his life. As his wife I would have known if such a threat was existing" and "Further to the allegations, I have no knowledge of any documentation or proof thereof according to the so-called allegations made in The Sunday Times."

In summary, The Sunday Times has been unable to provide any credible evidence to underpin the allegations printed in their article, which is hardly unexpected as the events they allege did not take place. On the contrary, they have simply taken an intransigent position concerning the claim that Lifeguard voluntarily provided weapons to the AFRC to allow Branch Energy to continue mining, despite the fact that no mining operations at all were undertaken from the time of the coup, and have refused to offer any form of correction relating to these specific allegations.

It is for this reason, and also to seek to place on notice any writer mischievously inclined to repeat the allegations, that we now feel it necessary to set the record straight in this comment piece.

<< Back to List   Sandline Home