• combating conflict diamonds
• natural resources in conflict
• ending impunity
• forests
• corruption in oil, gas and mining
• banks and corruption
• independent forest monitoring
• climate change and energy security
• libel reform
  • The Sassou Nguesso case

Libel laws, privacy and the threat to freedom of speech

View latest releases on libel reform

Letter to The Economist on libel reform

Among the many threats that Global Witness faces, by far the most common is legal action - both in terms of libel and breach of privacy. We investigate natural resource-related conflict and corruption, which means naming and shaming crooked politicians and businessmen, organised crime networks and violent warlords. Our targets are often enormously rich and can afford to use the law to crush freedom of speech, even when what we publish is true, and in the public interest.

We regularly receive threats attempting to silence us, and always deal with these robustly. In July 2007, for example, the son of the President of the Republic of Congo, Denis Christel Sassou Nguesso, used privacy laws to try and force us to remove certain documents from our website which showed that he had been using state oil revenues to fund his lavish personal lifestyle. We won the case, and were awarded costs - but we have still not been paid, so we effectively lost over £50,000 in the space of a week. This is a lot of money for an organisation our size, and could have funded at least 5 in-depth investigations.   

Libel tourism on the march

England's claimant-friendly privacy and libel laws facilitate - and even encourage - such activities. Civil society organisations, academics, scientists and the media are increasingly constrained and intimidated by outdated laws which allow plaintiffs to crush criticism on tenuous grounds. Many are engaging in self-censorship, rather than risking a legal action that could threaten their very existence. This is an understandable reaction, but it is a very dangerous one in a country that values freedom of speech.

Claimants can use the English courts to fight for their reputations even if the link to the country is tenuous. For example, Ukrainian energy billionaire Rinat Akhmetov successfully sued two Ukraine-based, Ukrainian-language internet publications in the English courts; and a Saudi businessman sued the American writer, Rachel Ehrenfeld in London for linking him to Al Qaeda in her American-published book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It. In response to this trend, a number of US states have introduced laws to protect American authors and publishers from the enforcement of foreign libel judgements.

Who are the key players?

Well-known law firms in England, such as Carter Ruck and Schillings, are effectively touting for business, offering their services on a "no-win, no-fee" basis. This is exacerbating what is already a very difficult environment in the UK, where legal costs are significantly higher than in other countries.

Recently, Carter Ruck, acting on behalf of oil firm Trafigura, used the courts to help obtain a settlement with the BBC over allegations about the effects of dumping toxic waste in Côte d'Ivoire (see Guardian article on Trafigura case). That figurehead institutions such as the BBC can be intimidated by such actions shows the scale of the problem. As significant and worrying in this case was Carter Ruck's apparent attempt to prevent the reporting of parliamentary processes via a "super-injunction".

The campaign for change

Global Witness is calling for extensive reform of UK privacy and libel laws and fully supports the parliamentary campaign launched by PEN, Index on Censorship and SENSE. In 2009 we made both a written and oral submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on UK Privacy and Libel Laws, and, along with other NGOs, submitted an Amicus Curiae brief to the European Court of Human Rights. Global Witness spokespeople were also quoted in the New York Times and the Sunday Times highlighting the urgent need for change.

We welcome the news that the Justice Minister Jack Straw will be convening a panel to review the current system but urge the Minister to ensure that representatives from the full spectrum of organisations affected by this issue are appointed. The panel must not just be made up of members of the media and legal professions, but also of non-governmental organisations publishing on matters of public interest that face different challenges and operate in a different context from journalists and lawyers. The work of such organisations, campaigning on matters of public interest, will become more important as newspapers continue to cut back on quality long-term investigative reporting.  

Go to English Pen website

Go to Index on Censorship website