Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1700
- 1719)
TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 1998
MS ANN
GRANT and MR
CRAIG MURRAY
1700. But you shared that view?
(Ms Grant) I think it does follow on from the
earlier points we made about the last thing the region needed
was any more arms.
1701. But specifically in the hands of the
Kamajors?
(Ms Grant) Yes, I think that would have been seen
as undesirable at the time.
1702. You have no extra light you can shed
on how this UN Resolution emerged as it did?
(Ms Grant) As I say, I think it was as I described
it. We were advised that the most effective way to apply the arms
embargo was to make it geographic, and we saw no significant down-side
to adopting that path.
1703. So when on December 3rd at this mass
meeting which took place in which the Defence Intelligence Department
briefed other members that in fact Executive Outcomes was supplying
arms to the Kamajors, that did not ring any bells? Was that not
the first tell-tale sign that there was at least a breach of the
arms embargo taking place? Indeed, if I believe 3.10 and 3.11,
one of the concerns was that you did not want to send any more
arms to the Kamajors, but here we have a company which the Department
of Defence people were saying had already been supplying arms.
(Ms Grant) I am sorry, I am just looking at the
note again. I was not at the meeting myself.
1704. It was copied to everybody. It was
copied to yourself.
(Ms Grant) Indeed. I am just re-reading it. My
memory is that there was not collateral for that report at the
time. It was a one-off and it did not seem to be supported by
other evidence or by other people.
1705. Do we know in retrospect whether there
was any accuracy in that?
(Ms Grant) 3rd December. That would seem to pre-date
even what we know is—
1706. It is one of the earliest.
(Ms Grant) What I was trying to respond to was
how it was perceived by the people at the meeting at the time,
and I think I recall them saying that there was no collateral
for that report and therefore it was not a central feature of
the discussion.
1707. As I read through all this, it was
not so much the dog which did not bark but the bells which did
not ring at various times. If in fact the policy was to prevent
arms filtering through to whichever side, why did bells not ring
rather earlier than they appear to have done? Here was the first
occasion, at least in terms of the record, where it was clear
a company was actually reputed to have either delivered or was
in the process of delivering arms to one of the factions within
Sierra Leone, which was originally a matter of concern to the
Cabinet Office and everybody else in drafting the UN Resolution.
You cannot shed light on why people were not jumping up and down
on this issue?
(Ms Grant) I cannot say why they were not jumping
up and down about this particular report, but I take your point.
Again with hindsight, it is possible to trace back various warning
bells which, as you say—
1708. Basically you are saying that you
did not know the substance of the December 3rd one and it was
not sufficient for you to feel, or the department to feel, there
was something rather difficult or unsavoury going on?
(Ms Grant) Not only the department but, as I say,
all the others present from other departments. I would say a point
which has already been made, and it may be worth repeating, that
the number of rumours and stories about who was doing what with
whom in Sierra Leone with whose money were legion. Lord Avebury
reported his own, and sent us several examples from the Internet
at the time. We did have an awful lot of different versions of
events and it was very difficult to establish what was happening.
Warning bells would have rung across a whole range of issues I
think and it was difficult to decipher what to take seriously.
1709. What I would like to suggest to you
is that it is the task of a combination of the FCO and Defence
Intelligence to pick the wheat from the chaff in all this and
define clearly what weight one should give to this. I am just
thinking that looking in retrospect at the December 3rd one it
might have had rather greater weight than was given to it.
(Ms Grant) And what we do not know, as I say,
is whether there was any foundation for that particular report
at the time.
1710. Let me turn to the next occasion when
certainly weight should have been given. We have been over this
many times but I am not clear in my mind how all these things
unfolded and I would like to try them out again, and this involves
December 19th and December 23rd. First of all, we have the High
Commissioner meeting the President who tells him all about this
contract. Then we have this extraordinary account of this meeting
of December 23rd in the morning between officials of your department
and Mr Penfold. No record of the meeting—okay, it is word
of mouth, it is also eve of Christmas and all the rest of it.
How do we decide who to believe? You have that one extraordinary
paragraph. I put it to Mr Penfold very forcefully, so I will now
put it to you with equal force. This is paragraph 5.24 and I find
this paragraph one of the most extraordinary paragraphs in the
whole of the Legg Report. You will have seen from the burden of
my questioning of Mr Penfold that I found great difficulty in
understanding this. As described by Legg it is that he did not
recall specifically mentioning arms. He had come fresh from a
major meeting, or at least a meeting of some significance, with
a head of state, had been told about a contract which he assumed
involved arms, although it was the Blackstone contract and not
Sandline, and he subsequently described it as one involving arms,
and yet in 5.24 we have Mr Penfold described as not specifically
recalling mentioning it. Even more extraordinary, officers in
your department cannot even recall the meeting.
(Ms Grant) That is correct.
1711. You presumably have asked them? You
must have asked them?
(Ms Grant) I have.
1712. We have chosen not to drag before
this Committee those officials mentioned, but you have presumably
asked them, both of you must have asked them endlessly. First
of all, do they now accept they did meet with Mr Penfold? Is it
generally accepted that there was a meeting of some kind with
Mr Penfold?
(Ms Grant) We have in the report here that "...
Ms St Cooke has only a vague recollection of seeing Mr Penfold
before Christmas ...", but neither recalls specifically a
meeting on the morning of the 23rd.
1713. So Mr Penfold's reporting of his discussion
with a head of state only four days earlier, which involved talking
about a contract which had implications if nothing else for arms,
never registered with the two officials concerned?
(Ms Grant) Again, Mr Andrews cannot recall this
conversation at all.
Chairman
1714. Or even a meeting?
(Ms Grant) Indeed.
(Mr Murray) May I add that I have asked Mr Andrews
and Ms St Cook on this point. Their recollection is that Mr Penfold
came in to pick up some mail, that he used the telephone, either
Mr Andrews' or Ms St Cook's telephone, to make a number of calls
and exchanged a few general remarks with them, but that there
was no meeting of substance or policy discussion of any kind at
all to the best of the recollection of both of them.
1715. So if I may, just for confirmation's
sake, register the point, if nothing else, Mr Penfold's evidence
to us, question 1119, was, "I told the officials exactly
what I heard from President Kabbah, that President Kabbah was
contemplating signing an agreement with a firm called Blackstone
which in return for minor concessions was making available 10
million dollars to a company called Sandline". That was never,
in the view of the two officials, reported to them at that meeting.
(Mr Murray) Mr Andrews has seen this evidence
and confirms to me that it is not correct.
1716. So in fact of huge significance to
anybody reading this from outside of that meeting of the 23rd
December is not only a conflict of evidence, but actually disbelief
that this was a serious meeting where serious issues were actually
reported, and obviously then he did not report the discussion
he had had at lunch, or there was certainly no record of that
and Mr Penfold agrees that he did not recall that either?
(Mr Murray) Mr Andrews' recollection is that Mr
Penfold did not—
Chairman: What was
the response?
Mr Rowlands
1717. Mr Penfold went off to his lunch with
Sandline, heard more about the contract, and whether he did or
did not receive a copy is another piece of conflicting evidence,
but, nevertheless, he did not, to your knowledge, report that
back? He says he did not actually because he said he told you
everything that morning.
(Mr Murray) Mr Andrews' recollection is that he
did not return after lunch and also that he did not say with whom
he was having lunch.
1718. So it was not until the 29th/30th
that officials at your level heard all about this meeting with
the President on the 19th. Is that right?
(Mr Murray) The 29th January.
1719. Yes, 29th January, as late as that
because he went away for a month then, so there was a whole month
when in fact this very important meeting was unreported to you
as far as you are concerned?
(Mr Murray) That is right. According to Mr Penfold,
it was reported in a letter which he posted on the 30th December,
but there was no other report to the Department.
| 
