the toxic truth - Greenpeace

164 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpeAce netherlAnds
Chapter 13
seeKing To prevenT
vicTims’ access To
Key informaTion
Trafigura has never disclosed all of the
information it holds on the content of
the Probo Koala waste. As noted in previous
chapters of this report, the most
thorough analysis of the waste was
carried out by the Netherlands Forensic
Institute (NFI). This information was
handed to lawyers acting for the claimants
in the UK case. However, Trafigura
had objected to this and brought legal
proceedings in the Netherlands seeking
to prevent UK lawyers Leigh Day from
using the NFI information. Leigh Day
had emphasized how important the NFI
report was for the victims. On 20 April
2012 the Dutch High Court rejected
an appeal by Trafigura in respect of the
company’s complaint that the prospector
had unlawfully handed over the NFI
report to Leight Day.
In an effort to prevent all-out fraud, in February
2010 the claimants’ UK lawyers agreed a deal
with CNVDT-CI to carry out a joint distribution
process. Some people were able to access
their money through this process, but it
was plagued by reports of irregularities and
eventually ground to a halt, with some 6,000
people unpaid. The millions of dollars left in
the fund disappeared. Both the UK law firm,
and Amnesty International pressed the Ivorian
government to investigate the case.
An investigation into the misappropriation
of the compensation money was opened in
2011. In May 2012, Côte d’Ivoire’s Minister of
African Integration, Adama Bictogo, who had
become involved in the process in 2010, when
he is reported to have tried to facilitate an
agreement between the claimants’ UK lawyers
and CNVDT-CI, was sacked by the President
over allegations that he had received some
of the compensation money as a “fee” for his
role in facilitation. 720
Allegations of
bribery and witness
tampering
In early 2009, the victim’s
lawyers, Leigh Day & Co,
alleged that Trafigura and
its lawyers, Macfarlanes,
improperly approached lead
claimants in the UK civil case
in an attempt to make them
change their testimonies. They
obtained a temporary injunction
barring Trafigura’s lawyers
from contacting claimants in
the case, after evidence was
presented that some claimants
had come under pressure to
change their sworn statements.
In particular, it was alleged
that Macfarlanes, acting for
Trafigura, paid for a claimant
witness to travel to Morocco
where he was met by one of Macfarlanes’
partners who questioned him for two days.
This individual alleges that he was offered
inducements to change his story and was
put under considerable pressure to do so. He
described the situation:
“ i left abidjan with Royal air Maroc… i
travelled business class. ...we were booked into
the Sheraton. i had never seen such beautiful
hotel in my life. i ate very well at the Sheraton….
The day after our arrival, two white men who
spoke english arrived. at the beginning we
chatted; then they began to ask me a lot of
questions. i passed two entire days from 8am
to 10pm responding to their questions. We took
pauses of 20 minutes from time to time, but it
was intense. They spoke of many illnesses such
as malaria. They asked me how i could be sure
that my illness had been caused by the waste
and not something else… They told me to say
that i hadn’t seen the trucks, even though i
clearly remember seeing the trucks discharging
the waste in akouédo. ”
“ i started to feel that i had to agree with
them or i wouldn’t be going home alive. after all
these questions i was no longer even sure of the
truth. The whites also knew i had a daughter.
They told me that they could take care of her
and pay all her expenses. i was astonished that
they knew i had a daughter and even knew her
721
name and date of birth. ”
Both Trafigura 722 and Macfarlanes 723 have
denied the allegations that they acted
improperly in respect of the questioning of
witnesses. Macfarlanes admit to having met
the claimant witness in Morocco and paying
for his “travel and related costs”. They deny
however having offered any inducements or
having acted unethically. They have stated
that they had “valid and exceptional legal
reasons for agreeing to meet the individual
referred to”, adding “We … had the right, and
indeed duty, to investigate by interviewing the
claimants, as their evidence would be likely to
have a fundamental bearing on the case.” 724