Was it an ‘announcement’ or rather an ‘advertisement including misleading information’? This was the question facing the Advertising Code Committee in a complaint filed by Greenpeace against the Trafigura company.

In 2006, the Probo Koala, chartered by the Swiss-based oil and commodity shipping company Trafigura disposed of toxic waste in the Ivorian port of Abidjan. The waste was then dumped in up to 12 sites around Abidjan. Seventeen people allegedly died and over 30,000 Ivorians sustained injuries which ranged from mild headaches to severe burns of skin and lungs. Almost 100,000 Ivorians sought medical attention.

In the eyes of the Trafigura trading company, reporting on the Probo Koala toxic waste scandal has been ‘biased’ and ‘factually wrong’ right from the start. Trafigura, which had chartered the vessel, on 30 September 2009 published an ‘announcement’ in national newspapers to ‘correct distortions in the media’. The publication’s heading read: ”Probo Koala ship waste could not have resulted in death or other serious injuries –London High Court confirms”. The statement angered the environmental organisation Greenpeace, which earlier brought the Probo Koala case to the attention of the Dutch Public Prosecutors’ Office. So the organisation filed a complaint with the Advertising Code Committee.

Four arguments
Greenpeace presented four arguments why the ‘advertisement’ included misleading information. Firstly, it suggested that a legal verdict was handed down. Secondly, the text wrongly suggested that UK judge MacDuff – who was quoted in the publication - said that the waste the Probo Koala dumped in the Ivorian city of Abidjan could not cause death or serious injuries.
The third argument was that the publication wrongly speaks of dumping ‘slops’, waste water from the washing of a ship’s tanks. In fact, the Probo Koala was carrying waste of a far more toxic nature and a more complex chemical composition. Finally, Greenpeace believes the advertisement wrongly suggests that Trafigura was exonerated from acting dishonestly in the Probo Koala case and that Trafigura has become the victim of a ‘trial by media’.

Socially responsible
Trafigura’s lawyer says the announcement was not an advertisement but rather a factual statement to the public, which has received inadequate information for so long. The company argues that the statement was solely intended to redress incorrect and biased media reporting, fully in line with Trafigura’s freedom of speech. The announcement also addresses the settlement between Trafigura and 30,000 Ivorian victims, which was agreed without Trafigura ever being convicted of any wrongdoing or admitting any liability. The company’s lawyer says this is a clear sign that Trafigura takes its social responsibilities and has great sympathy for the people of the West African sub-continent. If anybody is guilty of deception, according to Trafigura’s lawyer, it is Greenpeace with its ‘unfounded’ accusations.

Drivers
It is notable that Trafigura’s lawyer referred twice to the issue which partly dominated the media two days ago and yesterday morning: the drivers. At the start of his closing argument, he argued that Greenpeace was publishing unfounded opinions about Trafigura. And toward the end he said about this ‘witch hunt’ that Trafigura had consistently acted in good faith. “Yes, money was paid, but it was compensation for lost income. Not out of an admission of liability, but out of sympathy for the region.”
Back to the session of the Advertising Code Committee. Not surprisingly, Trafigura’s arguments failed to sway Greenpeace. One of the organisation’s lawyers asked rhetorically: “If this company only intended to inform the Dutch public, why was the advertisement translated and published on Trafigura’s English-language website?”

The Advertising Code Committee will present its ruling in just over two weeks, on 3 June.