Freed mercenary calls for Mark Thatcher to 'face justice'
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Simon Mann, the Eton-educated mercenary who was imprisoned for plotting a coup in west Africa, arrived back in Britain today and called for Mark Thatcher to “face justice” over his alleged involvement in the ill-fated conspiracy.
A day after he was released from the notorious Black Beach prison in Equatorial Guinea following a pardon from the oil-rich country’s president, the 57-year-old former SAS soldier landed at Luton airport on board a private Falcon 900 jet to be reunited with his wife and seven children, including his youngest son, Arthur, who was born after his arrest in 2004.
Mann is expected to be interviewed “very soon” by Scotland Yard detectives conducting an investigation into claims that part of the planning for the plot to overthrow President Teodoro Obiang Nguema was conducted in London, and therefore could have broken British terrorism laws.
The British soldier’s premature release, just 15 months into a 34-year prison sentence imposed last summer, is widely considered to have been linked to his testimony during his trial that the bungled coup’s organising team included Sir Mark, son of the former prime minister Baroness Thatcher, and Ely Calil, a London-based businessman with interests in oil. Both men, who issued statements welcoming Mann’s release, have consistently denied claims they were involved in the plot.
Before leaving Equatorial Guinea, whose 500,000-strong population has seen little improvement in living standards despite the discovery of their country’s huge oil wealth in the 1990s, Mann said he would be happy to appear in a British court as a prosecution witness to testify against Sir Mark and Calil.
He said: “I am very anxious that Calil, Thatcher and one or two of the others should face justice.” Mann was visited three times in Black Beach by officers from the Yard’s counter-terrorism command as part of their investigation, but it is not yet clear whether he is being treated as a witness or a potential defendant.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: “We can confirm we are investigating whether any offences may have been disclosed in this country. We are aware of developments but are not prepared to discuss them further.”
Mann, who was due back at his £5m Hampshire mansion last night, said he was “extremely grateful” to Obiang – who has been described by a British judge as presiding over a regime that routinely uses torture – for his release and the way in which he had been treated.
As well as receiving meals cooked at a nearby hotel and a weekly phone call to his sister, the Briton had an exercise bicycle in his cell and regularly lunched with his host country’s security minister.
In a statement, Mann said: “I regret what happened in 2004. It was wrong and I’m happy that we did not succeed. I am extremely grateful not only for my pardon but the way in which I’ve been treated from the moment I arrived in Equatorial Guinea.”
It emerged yesterday that his supporters had paid £200,000 as part of negotiations to secure Mann’s release, conducted in London in August and September at a series of meetings at the Ritz hotel and the Equatoguinean embassy in St James’s. The sum was agreed to cover the “expenses” of officials after initial demands for a £270m settlement were dropped by the Obiang regime.
Mann said: “This is the most wonderful homecoming I could ever have imagined. There hasn’t been a moment during the last five and a half years when I have not dreamt of one day being back in Britain with my family.”
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
have made them fwightfully bwave...
Suddenly a fascist nutjob has become a national hero....?
I read the book; THE WONGA COUP and Fred Karno's Army was better organized according to it.
Simon Mann was regarded among the Mercenary fraternity as the paragon of military planning and according to his followers, if anyone could take out a tin-pot dictator. He could.
I suppose they made their second mistake when they used Frederick Forsyth's book 'Dogs of War' as the definitive manual for their Coup Strategy. Their first mistake was including Thatcher's wimp.
It's interesting to note, that the group claimed to be hardened mercenaries and Special Forces Trained soldiers. But when they got turned in by Zimbabwe forces, they all blew the gaff on each other.
They should have let this scum Mann rot in prison with the rats until he died. But the Old School Tie can work its magic for even murderous criminals like Simon Mann.
If he had plotted the violent overthrow of the UK government, or that of Afghanistan, or of Iraq, would we be labelling him 'a mercenary'?
Is he somehow morally superior because he worships the $ rather than Allah?
Your definition of terrorist could use some work as well because you have listed Britain and America's modus operandi in Afghanistan and Iraq for a start but according to the powers that be neither can be called "terrorists"
That regular military forces sometimes hit non-military targets is not relevant to the definition of terrorism. It is not the principal modus operandi. Often military forces are careless of non-military bodies, which is inexcusable. Sometimes non-military targets are deliberately chosen, but it is usually for the pursuit of a military objective. That is also probably inexcusable. It is quite reasonable to call the bombing of Dresden, for example, terrorism. That regular forces sometimes commit acts of terrorism does not affect the definition of terrorism.
It is important to be aware of the meanings of words and not confuse them, otherwise exchange of views and information becomes difficult.
We tend to call terrorists whose aims we approve of freedom fighters, but they are still terrorists.
And I wouldn't let 'the powers that be' define usage. That's the way we get 'collateral damage'.
Informative stuff indeed. Where does 'counter-insurgency' fit in then? And how comes I never read about the 'insurgency' that must be going on in all these wars we seem to be involving ourselves in for us to be busy with 'counter-insurgency' ?
Is this because 'countering' something implies fixing a problem whereas calling these nasty people 'insurgents' instead of 'terrorists' instead of might imply they might have a legitimate gripe?
The invasion of Iraq was not counter-insurgency, as the target was the government of the country. There was subsequently insurrection against the occupying forces, so 'counter-insurgency' could be used. Similarly the invasion of Afghanistan was directed at those then in control, the taliban. Once they were 'defeated' and a 'democratic' government installed, action by the taliban became an insurgency. Governments (all of them) misuse such terms, but the terms do have meaning.
Not to be pedantic, but as we're trying to use words correctly to communicate an understanding of actions,
"I have made it clear that the purpose of any action should be the disarmament of Iraq. Whether that involves regime change is in a sense a question for Saddam as to whether he is prepared to comply with the UN resolution. I consider it odd that people can find the notion of regime change in Iraq somehow distasteful. Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he studies the Iraqi regime carefully, he will find that it is not very redolent of anything to do with the Liberal Democrats. "
Prime Minister, taken from Hansard 24/09/02
I do appreciate that even were this statement taken to be true both on September 24th 2002 and on March 20th 2003 this would still not imply our invasion of Iraq was "counter-insurgency"...
See how easy it is to get confused when people don't use clear language? ;)
It wasn't clear to me. My apologies for my inability to understand your meaning. The implication I assigned to your post seemed the most likely given the circumstances of the war (not allowing weapons inspectors to complete their inspection etc. etc). Perhaps if you had been clearer...
But he is a purveyor of death and destruction and he was involved with Tim Spicer for some time, the same Tim Spicer that did nothing when his company Aegis were recording trophy videos of innocent Iraqi's being gunned down by Aegis workers.
Those considering a life as a "Wild Goose" should also know that many times these companies find it cheaper to arrange for a bullet in the nape of the neck than paying up, it is a dirty, dirty business and we should be demanding it be outlawed.
Beware. The old Chinese curse. May your dreams come true!
Perhaps a tad of hypocrisy, the Yard would want a word with Mann upon his release. What more needs to be investigated or said that the Yard couldn't get off Mark Thatcher. That said, it is a freaking disgrace the conduct of the Yard, Foreign Office and all who shielded Mama's boy from the letter of the law.
The entire episode reeks just as much as when the SFO investigated arms purchased that involved the Saudi govt, the ruling family and tribal sandmonkeys fleecing the coffers of the Kingdom and all conducted under the auspice of Blair and Co.
Something doesn't smell quite right in the Commons or is it the Lords' ?
PMC / Mercenary / Terrorist
It is the same job under 3 different names depending on who your employer is.
PMC - You are working for our Government to kill people overseas.
Mercenary - You are working for yourself leased out to someone else to kill people overseas.
Terrorist - You are working for the enemy of our Government to kill our people.
PMC - You are a HERO protecting UK Public / Interests overseas in countries like Afghanistan.
Mercenary - You are a money hungry basta*d cashing in on hell holes like Afghanistan people claim you have no morals and only live for money.
Terrorist - You are against the UK/West forcing its ideas and beliefs on to you, your country and your fellow FREEDOM FIGHTERS!
So to the guys that leave the MoD what will your title be
CPO (Crap money if working in the UK)
PMC (Was good money until all the companies started undercutting one another, now they are paying peanuts and employing monkeys)
Mercenary (Money is fantastic depending were and who you have to help meet their maker.)
Or
Terrorist (Crap money, Chinese build AK-47s and over 100,000 US/UK/Aussie troops looking at putting a bullet in you.
Rumours he had difficulty navigating the internet were discounted when he was found confused in his lounge looking for a 13 amp socket.
No doubt, I'd imagine he'll be joking after the Church service over Christmas dinner about those 'crazy Africans' who cannot seem to get their affairs in order. What a sick world.
1."Mann, who was due back at his £5m Hampshire mansion..."
This mansion, was it inherited, or did he come by it by engaging in nefarious jobs?
2. "It emerged yesterday that his supporters had paid £200,000 as part of negotiations to secure Mann’s release..."
His supporters? Who are his supporters that they could come up with such a sum, and why did they do it?
Isn't that what America, Britain et al go to war for all the time.
If we are to have some sort of moral legitimacy on our side and test our judgment as to what regimes should be changed or not then we need to be clear with ourselves how we answer those questions.