Examination of witness (Questions 780
- 799)
TUESDAY 3 NOVEMBER 1998
MR
TIM
SPICER,
OBE
780. And who should you have obtained instructions
or whatever in writing from in this case?
(Mr Spicer) In this particular case my view is
that I had the word, if you like, from Her Majesty's Government's
representative that this was an acceptable course of action and
his word is good enough for me and I did not feel that I had to
get anything in writing. But as we have all seen with the furore
that surrounded this affair, I would do that in the future. I
think it has been alluded to by members of the government and
others that one of the lessons of the Legg Report is that there
should be a proper mechanism put in place for liaison between
government departments and organisations such as mine and presumably
that mechanism, when it is formulated and formalised, would be
the route down which we would travel in order to seek that approval
or not as the case may be.
781. I do not understand this. You were
not in any way acting as the agent of the British government so
in what way could you have received any form of written instructions
or understanding from them?
(Mr Spicer) In the case of Sierra Leone we did
not and I would not have wished to seek any. I think the question
you asked me was what would I do in the future and my answer to
that is I would seek to clarify exactly what the position was,
what the government's view was and if the government approved
or not of what I was doing or, indeed, if it had no comment to
make.
Mr Mackinlay
782. In the Legg Report, p23, paragraph
4.5, it says: "Mr Spicer told us that Mr Tony Buckingham,
an international businessman with a major shareholding in Diamond
Works, acted as patron to Sandline, although he had no involvement
with its ownership or operation." I understand that Mr Buckingham
is Chairman of Heritage Oil which own Sandline, is that correct?
(Mr Spicer) I am not quite sure what Mr Buckingham's
position in Heritage is. He is very closely associated with Heritage,
but Heritage does not own Sandline.
783. Does Plaza 107 own Sandline?
(Mr Spicer) No.[1]
784. Who owns Sandline?
(Mr Spicer) It is owned by a group of investors
and they are incorporated in a holding company.
785. In the Papua New Guinea inquiry there
was a diagram produced showing the relationships between various
companies of Sandline, i.e. Heritage Oil, Lifeguard, Branch Energy,
Executive Outcomes, IBIS. Would it be possible to produce a diagram
of the relationship between these key companies for the Committee?
(Mr Spicer) It would be possible to produce a
diagram that refers to these companies, but what I would point
out is that Sandline is a completely separate company and it is
not owned by any of the other companies referred to. It may have
contractual relations with some of the organisations referred
to, but I do not have the benefit of having that diagram in front
of me.
786. Would it be possible to get it subsequently?
(Mr Spicer) I would be very happy to provide a
diagram.[2]
787. We are told that Sandline is registered
in the Bahamas. There is also a Sandline registered in the British
Virgin Islands. What is that one and why?
(Mr Spicer) I am not an expert on the corporate
structure and the whys and wherefores of it, there is a commercial
consultant who deals with that, but I believe that the company
you may be referring to is a company called Sandline Holdings
as opposed to Sandline International, but I am not entirely sure
of the details.
788. What is that company? What does it
do?
(Mr Spicer) Sandline Holdings would be a parent
holding company, an administrative company of Sandline, but my
concern is with Sandline International.
789. It is said in the Legg report (p26)
that Mr Penfold told you he had recommended Sandline to President
Kabbah. Could you elaborate upon that?
(Mr Spicer) The discussion took place at a meeting
that I had with Mr Penfold after President Kabbah had actually
approached us and the gist of the conversation was that President
Kabbah had discussed[3]
this matter with Mr Penfold in Conakry and that, as far as I remember,
there had been a discussion about Sandline and possibly one or
two other companies and the indication that I got from Mr Penfold
was that he had suggested that Sandline might be a suitable company.
790. You presented Project Python to Mr
Penfold. Project Python was a fairly brief piece of paper but
it outlined what your game plan was for the Sierra Leone operation.
This was handed to Mr Penfold, was it not?
(Mr Spicer) Yes.
791. Did that contain any indication that
there would be the movement of weapons or arms? To what extent
did this throw light on your intentions?
(Mr Spicer) The document you are referring to
is a document that I wrote called Concept of Operations
and it refers to the game plan, what we had intended to do in
order to support President Kabbah, the economic forces and the
civil defence militia and as far as I can remember it refers specifically
to the provision of military equipment, including arms and ammunition.
792. You would have no objection to the
Committee seeing that, would you?
(Mr Spicer) I think that has already been discussed
with the Chairman. It is, as far as I am concerned, a commercially
and, as far as Sierra Leone is concerned, a politically sensitive
document and I believe that the Committee have written to President
Kabbah to ask his authority for it to be viewed by the Committee.
793. If President Kabbah had no objection
you would have no objection, would you?
(Mr Spicer) No objection at all.
794. Why was it not handed to Murray but
it was handed to Penfold?
(Mr Spicer) Because I believe at the time that
I saw Mr Murray, which I think was on the 19th January, the document
may have not been finished. In any event, the purpose of the document
was to discuss operational detail on the ground and inform people
who were reading it of what the intention was and I believed that
it was more relevant for Mr Penfold to see the document, given
its sensitive nature, than officials in the Foreign Office back
here who would have no direct input.
795. Has your company been paid for the
services you provided?
(Mr Spicer) We were paid a proportion of the agreed
amount which the financier had contracted with President Kabbah.
796. Is this Mr Saxena?
(Mr Spicer) That is right. And the amount was
not nearly enough to complete the operation envisaged in the document
you have just referred to and therefore, not wishing to let President
Kabbah down and wishing to assist him into his rightful place,
we had to tailor our contributions accordingly.
797. You inferred to the Committee that
you were satisfied that what your company was proposing was consistent
both with United Kingdom foreign policy and consistent with the
law. It occurs to me that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Surely
there is a burden on you to satisfy yourself as to what the legal
position is.
(Mr Spicer) If you are referring to the legal
position—
798. I am referring to the Security Council
Resolution and the Order in Council.
(Mr Spicer) I am completely clear and have been
throughout that that UN Resolution was aimed entirely at the junta,
not at President Kabbah and I did not know of the existence of
the Order in Council until such time as Customs & Excise referred
me to it and I believe that is also the case with certain members
of the Foreign Office, that they were not aware of it either until
much later. It is clear from subsequent government statements
and press releases and other things after the whole issue came
out, the UN have confirmed it, that the purpose of that resolution
was to stifle or put a stranglehold on the junta.
799. United Kingdom law has enshrined in
the Order of Council that it is unlawful to supply arms or to
give this kind of support to any party in Sierra Leone. Is there
not a burden on you to satisfy yourself about the law?
(Mr Spicer) In general terms obviously there is
a burden to satisfy oneself as to the law, but in this case, as
I have said, I believed that what we were doing was within the
law.
1 See Memorandum, p. 41. Back
2
See Memorandum, p. 41. Back
3
Note by Witness: This evidence is corroborated by the similar
understanding gained by Mr Murray and Ms Grant on 29 and 30 January
1998 (see paragraphs 6.39 and 6.40 of the Legg Report). Back
| 
