Summary

Introduction

Around the world, these disputes have attracted the shorthand name of the "Tuna Bonds" affair or the "Hidden Debts" affair. They concern alleged corruption, within business and state.

In 1975, independence was declared in Mozambique. The Government of the Republic is and has been formed by a political party known as the FRELIMO party. The position at the head of Government is that of President. The Assembly of the Republic of Mozambique is its Legislature.

Mozambique enjoys a substantial coastline on the eastern side of the continent of Africa. With this, and a related Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending 200 nautical miles from its coast, comes commercial opportunities for fishing and for energy. In 2010, a natural gas field was discovered in the Rovuma Basin.

In turn, with those opportunities come increased issues of maritime security, and of the resources required to realise the opportunities. Before the chapter in Mozambique's life with which this trial is concerned, Mozambique explored engaging with China over some of the infrastructure required.

Mozambique's National Report to the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission of 2011 recorded that for the reporting periods ending 30 December 2010 and 30 June 2011 "the country has only foreign fleet". By 2011, the Government was also looking to develop a naval industry to reduce its dependency on foreign sourcing of naval repair and maintenance.

Then in 2013 and 2014 three freshly incorporated state-owned enterprises (variously "SOEs" or "SPVs") entered into supply contracts with members of the Privinvest group of companies, led by Mr Iskandar Safa. On the face of things, the first supply contract was for the supply of radar stations, boats and aircraft for monitoring and protecting the EEZ, including from piracy. The second was for the supply of a fishing fleet to fish tuna in the EEZ. The third supply contract was for the supply of shipyard facilities, including for shipbuilding and repair.

After change orders and increases, a total of approaching US$2 billion, or more than 12% of GDP, was payable for the supplies contracted under these three supply contracts. Loan facilities of US$622 million (later increased to US$900 million), and US$850 million were agreed by members of the Credit Suisse banking group in relation to the first two. And of US$540 million by a member of the Russian banking group VTB, in relation to the third. On the face of things, Mozambique, as sovereign, guaranteed the lending under these facilities.

The ambition for protection, fishing and shipbuilding and repair was one thing. But the evidence at trial made me sure that Mozambique, by its Government, did not, by any measure, have the experience, expertise or organisational strength to put successfully to work what was to be supplied. There were projections that were not worth the name, not founded on scoping or preparation or strategy, and which were simply "made to fit."

Mozambique contends that corruption underlays these three projects ("the Projects"). Behind the Projects were a number of individuals, including those working for Privinvest, Credit Suisse or VTB group companies, and a number of senior officials or those holding senior public office within Mozambique. Their focus was on themselves rather their responsibilities to others. This self-interest drove activity, including a focus on the money that was to be provided by lending rather than on what was to be supplied. No-one looked out for the interests of Mozambique and its people.

The litigation

Regulatory and criminal proceedings have followed in various parts of the world, and in Mozambique itself. They continue in the United States. There have been arbitration proceedings too, including in Switzerland.

...

The legal teams and the trial

I do wish to pay tribute to the legal teams on all sides. A maximum of three months was allowed for the trial, which followed intensive case management over the two years from ordering the trial to its commencement.

To complete the trial itself within time required a level of professionalism by all teams, including in coordination. There was some of the most thorough work and some of the finest advocacy. The command that the legal teams had of the enormous amount of material was utterly impressive.

The settlements that were achieved will have been very challenging to achieve, but the involvement of the legal teams in achieving them deserves respect. With the earlier of the settlements, just as the trial was about to start, existing arrangements over who would lead on which issues at trial had to be reset, but the complete professionalism and deep experience of all legal teams (departing and remaining) enabled this.

The parties to these proceedings came from many parts of the world. The trial was followed from many parts of the world. It was a privilege to see shared confidence in a fair trial here, in England and Wales. A lot of resources were consumed. But not unduly so: a fair trial is important to the rule of law, on which every country in the world ultimately depends and from which every country in the world ultimately benefits.

...