In December 2024 and January 2025, Ian Lundin underwent twelve days of cross-examination. His performance in the courtroom, marked by evasive responses and selective recollections, neither bolstered the prosecution’s case nor did it disprove the core allegations at the heart of the case against him…

In 2024, testimony from 30 South Sudanese witnesses strongly supported the prosecution’s central claim: that the Sudanese military and its allied militias systematically committed war crimes…

In his testimony, Ian Lundin attempted to convince the court that he had only scant knowledge of Sudan, pretending unawareness of realities that were essential for his company’s success. This portrayal seemed at odds with evidence that he was actively involved in high-level discussions about critical political and security matters…

When questioned by his defence lawyers, Ian Lundin’s memory improved spectacularly, now recalling small details about specific meetings 25 years ago. His conspicuously selective memory, combined with evidence that crucial information had reached him, may lead the court to question his claims of ignorance…

Ian Lundin rejected the notion that his company’s security arrangements, or its sharing of work plans with the Sudanese military, had any detrimental impact on civilians. On the contrary, he argued that the company’s presence had brought significant benefits to Sudan. While acknowledging that oil played a role in fuelling violence in the region, he claimed that the violence was driven by pre-existing inter-ethnic disputes and had little to do with his company’s activities… 

Ian Lundin’s calm and preparedness made an impression. However, whether his performance has successfully deflected the weight of the allegations against him remains doubtful.

For more reports from the courthouse, see Civil Rights Defenders  here and Blanksspot here.