Examination of witness (Questions 1320
- 1339)
TUESDAY 3 NOVEMBER 1998
MR
PETER
PENFOLD,
CMG,
OBE
1320. Who else was present at some of these
meetings? These meetings you attended with Mr Flynn, who were
they with?
(Mr Penfold) We met, for example, the Chairman
of the UN Sanctions Committee, the Swedish representative, and
we met a number of the other international representatives there.
1321. Would you have had a pre meeting with
Flynn?
(Mr Penfold) No, not specifically. Well, we met
up in the offices of the UK mission and then walked across.
1322. At no stage did you say to him: "I
think there is this organisation we are aware of and we have had
their documents given to us who are facilitating arms into Sierra
Leone and supporting the Kabbah Government by ECOMOG?" Did
Flynn know?
(Mr Penfold) Yes.
1323. He did?
(Mr Penfold) You would have to ask him. From my
discussions with John Flynn I had the impression he was aware
of proposals to arm the Kamajors, whether it was directly related
to Sandline, briefed specifically about Sandline, I cannot say.
1324. Your impression is that Mr Flynn knew
that there was an initiative to arm the Kamajors?
(Mr Penfold) Yes.
1325. From where? From where would he think
these people could be armed and by whom?
(Mr Penfold) Through bodies such as Executive
Outcomes.
1326. He would have been aware of that?
(Mr Penfold) He picked that up from his briefing
in the Department before coming out to New York.
1327. I am obliged. Your first link up with
these people was when you had that meeting with Branch Energy,
that was the first? We now know since that there was a number
of organisations represented at that meeting including Executive
Outcomes and Sandline?
(Mr Penfold) Yes, subsequently. At the time I
was going to meet Branch Energy.
1328. On 15th April this year you told Mr
Spicer you thought it was inappropriate to see him because by
that time the balloon had gone up but you agreed to see Mr Bowen
on 23rd April. What was the difference? Why did you see Bowen
and not Spicer?
(Mr Penfold) Because Bowen was and is the Branch
Energy representative.
1329. By this time you know they are pretty
indivisible, these outfits, are they not?
(Mr Penfold) I do not think they are that indivisible.
Branch Energy is a British based mining company purely involved
in mining. They are undoubtedly linked to Executive Outcomes and
they are linked to Lifeguard. I was listening to Mr Spicer this
morning giving his definition. He said, I heard quite clearly,
Sandline is not connected to Branch Energy or Executive Outcomes
and so on. I believe they do make it difficult to link the various
companies. In terms of military security, mercenaries or whatever,
Branch Energy as such is not seen as part of that.
1330. What was Mr Bowen's purpose to see
you there?
(Mr Penfold) To talk about the mining industry.
Which meeting was this?
1331. The one on 23rd April. In fact, once
the meeting was open it became quite clear he was coming here
as some sort of agent of Sandline. "Mr Bowen's recollection
is that at the end of the meeting he referred to the Customs investigation
and asked Mr Penfold at what level FCO clearance had been obtained
for Sandline's activities." It is reported here that you
went on to say at least Head of Department level. In fairness
to you it says that "Mr Penfold does not recall the conversation
in these terms. At most he says he might have told Mr Bowen that
the people in London had been aware of the operation".
(Mr Penfold) I stand by what the Legg Report says.
1332. Can I go to the letter of 30 December,
which was not faxed, it was posted. In fairness to you there is
a substantive part of that letter which relates to the Honours
List. My understanding is that in this letter you expressed some
dismay or disappointment or irritation that there was not a certain
preferment in the New Year's Honours. That is correct, is it not?
(Mr Penfold) Yes.
1333. I put it to you that perhaps after
having written that—it may well have been irritation, disappointment
or whatever may not be justified—perhaps on mature reflection
either you or your spouse might have decided not to send it or
to let it rest?
(Mr Penfold) Not at all. I need to just explain
why I made those comments about the Honours. It was not so much
how I felt personally. Certainly my wife was very upset about
it but equally the other members of the team, and as you know
we were a five member team, the other four members received Honours
in the New Year's Honours and they were the ones who were embarrassed
quite frankly that I had not received anything as well. That was
why I was reflecting it in that letter.
1334. I do not want to labour the point
but it occurred to me that perhaps we have all written letters
and sometimes if we keep them overnight the following morning
we rewrite them, do we not, or rephrase them?
(Mr Penfold) I remember posting that letter in
the postbox.
1335. Okay. The adjournment debates which
featured both in the House of Lords and the House of Commons,
eventually through the network the Hansards reach you, albeit
they are long since delivered. Would you have read the Hansards?
(Mr Penfold) Yes.
1336. Surely you would have seen an alarm
there that a minister had been ill-informed or ill-briefed, or
anyway certainly the two chambers of Parliament had been misled?
I refer particularly in relation to, though not exclusively, the
rebuttal of the Observer articles and the very trenchant
way ministers did that.
(Mr Penfold) It was some time after I got the
Hansards. As you know, I was consulted at the time on the Observer
article. They telephoned me in Freetown and what I was being specifically
asked was had I ever attended a meeting with President Kabbah
and representatives of Sandline and I was able to give a categoric
assurance that had never happened.
1337. I have to refer to the adjournment
debates. I think that really one of the central features was the
suggestion that the United Kingdom had somehow acquiesced in the
knowledge of or were complicit in the movement of arms and there
the ministers denied this emphatically I seem to recall. We now
know the circumstances were slightly different from that. Did
it not occur to you, whatever communications you had available,
to flag it back to London that this was not entirely correct?
(Mr Penfold) It may well have been about three
or four weeks later that I got the Hansard.
1338. At page 59 of the Legg Report there
is this report of, if you like, not a conflict but it is yourself
and Mr Murray discussing the meeting with President Kabbah on
19 December. This occurs at the end of January. Your discussions
with Murray are relating to 19 December. It says that both were
dismayed at the other's attitude, which I am sure is probably
a fair rehearsal of what were the respective attitudes. You feared
that Mr Murray might be preparing to advise that the policy should
be changed from supporting President Kabbah's democratically elected
government and he was concerned that you were pushing a military
solution. It occurs to me if Murray is flagging this up, which
I do not think is contested, in a sense that is hardly him acquiescing
in the movement of arms and the involvement of Sandline as we
know it occurred. I do not know if you can help on that or perhaps
I have explained myself badly. It seems to me here you do not
dispute that Murray expressed in whatever terms he thought appropriate
his concern for your attitude, and presumably he inferred or put
to you that you were pushing the military solution and he disapproved
of that.
(Mr Penfold) Yes. As I understand it he believed
that I was advocating the use of force to seek the restoration
of President Kabbah, which I maintain I was not.
1339. Indeed, but the fact that Murray has
expressed this view is clearly not him acquiescing in the Sandline
operation.
(Mr Penfold) No, I guess not.
| 
