Examination of witness (Questions 920
- 939)
TUESDAY 3 NOVEMBER 1998
MR
TIM
SPICER,
OBE
920. Mr Spicer, you are a very personable
witness. I am not an expert on corporate structures but I know
the difference between the chairman of a company and someone who
has no formal relationship.
(Mr Spicer) Perhaps I can cover that point by
saying at the time I gave that evidence I was not really completely
conversant with the structure. It was my view that if you like
Mr Buckingham was the person I would turn to in the event of wanting
some advice and support, and I may have referred to him as the
Chairman but he is not the Chairman of Sandline.
Chairman: Who is?
Mr Mackinlay
921. Who is? Come on, tease us.
(Mr Spicer) I have already agreed to provide you,
or at least ask those investors who own Sandline to provide you,
with a note of the corporate structure.
922. But you told the Papua New Guinea inquiry
who it was. You now say it is erroneous. Can you tell us, give
us all the other stuff but satisfy us this morning: who is the
Chairman of Sandline?
(Mr Spicer) It is run on a day to day basis by
me.
Sir Peter Emery: But
you must know who your Chairman is.
Mr Mackinlay: Come
on.
Ms Abbott
923. Come on. You must know who the Chairman
of your company is.
(Mr Spicer) As I have already said, it does not
have a standard corporate structure. I run it on a day to day
basis. It is owned by a group of investors who are formed into
this group Adson Holdings. There is no Chairman as such.
924. I have to tell you that your description
of Sandline as some kind of workers' collective does not really
cut any ice at all with this Committee, nor are we persuaded that
at one time you knew who the Chairman of your company was but
now you do not. I have to say, Mr Spicer, that it does leave the
Committee speculating as to why it is so important to you to draw
a veil over the ownership of Sandline.
(Mr Spicer) I am not attempting to draw a veil.
I have said that I would ask whether the owners could supply the
details of the corporate structure to the Committee. I cannot
do any more than that.
Chairman
925. When was Sandline incorporated?
(Mr Spicer) Some time in the middle of 1996.
926. And you have been employed since?
(Mr Spicer) Yes.
927. Are you saying that you have not taken
the trouble to find out the Chairman and the other officials?
(Mr Spicer) There is only one if you like senior
official in Sandline and that is me. I have always made that very
clear. The investors do not wish to have their identities revealed.
Ms Abbott
928. I bet they do not.
(Mr Spicer) If they do, and they choose to present
that information to the Committee, that is a matter for them.
929. We will await some communication from
your corporate adviser but I have to say that your answers on
these questions are not satisfactory. It may be something that
the Committee want to come back to later in writing. Very early
on in your evidence you said in relation to your operations in
Sierra Leone, and these are your words, that you had been given
the nod by HMG. Those are your words. I took a note of them. You
have described at length how at no point did you tell them that
the proposed activities particularly in relation to the supply
of arms were in breach of the UN embargo, let alone the Order
in Council. What form did being given the nod take? Were you actually
just believing that silence meant consent?
(Mr Spicer) No. I do not think we should discuss
this matter as being given the nod. What it means to me and what
actually took place was that I had a number of discussions with
the High Commissioner. I had one particular meeting with two officials
and several other telephone conversations, and it was clear to
me, as I have said, that we were very open and clear about what
we intended to do and that there was no objection raised by any
official or any person in Government.
930. So all you are really saying, as I
said earlier, is that in your view silence gave consent. Because
they offered no objection you took that as being given the nod?
(Mr Spicer) I do not think it was a question of
them sitting there being silent and not taking part in any of
these meetings or confirming that they understood what we were
doing. Certainly in my discussion with Mr Penfold at the end of
January there was a sort of two-way traffic and he was very clear
about what we were going to do. He did not sit there and say nothing
and nod his head. There was not a question of us being able to
say, "Well, they have said nothing so we must assume they
mean yes".
931. So in particular at your meeting with
Mr Penfold at the end of January you believe that that was the
meeting at which as far as you were concerned de facto
you were given the nod?
(Mr Spicer) The whole series of meetings really
from the beginning of December onwards was a two-way traffic with
us informing the Foreign Office officials what we were going to
do and then saying a number of things, including culminating in
the meeting at the end of January when the project was well on
the way and in fact was only three weeks away from the delivery
of arms and equipment, that whole series of meetings and discussions
indicated to me that we were doing (a) nothing illegal and (b)
nothing that was being disapproved of.
Chairman
932. Back on the incorporation, have you
actually filed company returns?
(Mr Spicer) I have not personally but I do not
deal with that side of the business.
Mr Mackinlay
933. Mr Grunberg does, does he not?
(Mr Spicer) He does.
934. He does indeed because he is the Commercial
Director, he is the financial man.
(Mr Spicer) Commercial consultant.
Mr Wilshire
935. Mr Spicer, after an hour and a half
it is actually quite difficult if not impossible to raise new
issues but there are a number of matters that have been raised
where I would be very pleased if you could provide more detail.
The first of them is this question of what is Sandline. I cannot
speak for any colleague but I am still struggling to convince
myself that I have a very clear and accurate picture of the company.
You said that it is a limited company. Is that correct?
(Mr Spicer) It is a company incorporated in the
Bahamas.
936. With limited liability?
(Mr Spicer) Yes.
937. It will therefore have directors.
(Mr Spicer) Again I come back to this point that
I am not an expert on the corporate structure and, whilst I wish
to be helpful to the Committee, I have said that because I do
not have detailed knowledge of it I am happy to ask those that
do to provide it.[12]
938. I am aware that that is likely to be
the answer and the likelihood is that the answers to some of the
other questions will be, "No, I do not know", but I
want to get them on the record so that we will not have any doubt
in the future about what we asked the further information to contain.
You cannot tell me who the directors are. Will you include that
in your letter?
(Mr Spicer) I will do, yes.
939. Will you also indicate which of those
directors is the Chairman?
(Mr Spicer) Yes.
12 See Memorandum, p. 41. Back
| 
