The trial on the fine coal case resumed on Monday 4 December 2023 at the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Ouaga I.
The prosecutor’s customs expert was called to the stand to present what the prosecutor considered to be breaches of export obligations (in 2015, 2016 and 2018) by Essakane.
In his view, the problem lies with the export licences granted by customs, because Essakane submitted a licence application document that was not recognised by customs. At the same time, he points to a discrepancy in quantities between the various authorisations granted.
He pointed out that Essakane had declared activated coal instead of fine coal at the time of export, which meant that the gold contained in the fine coal was not taken into account. “This is an undeclared export,” he said.
He also added that there had been a misrepresentation in the designation of the actual consignees, because in the case of Essakane, the export consignee was Horn company, whereas in fact it was Glencore.
In response to Essakane’s claim that it had only exported fine coal because the elements (slag, pulp) found in the cargo were fine coal residues, the customs expert retorted that this was not the case, because for customs purposes pulp is a mineral with a special tax regime.
Essakane had taken 8 tonnes of rock from its site to send to the United States for confirmation of the gold and silver content. Essakane described these 8 tonnes as “samples”, whereas the customs expert stated that such a quantity could not be described as a sample. In addition, the customs expert stated that from a customs point of view, a sample should not have an economic value like the one from Essakane.
In conclusion, he stated that there had been a false declaration of the customs procedure, in that Essakane had declared the export as a simple exit (definitive export) when in fact it was a temporary export.
He was followed by Essakane’s country representative. She said that her company had sent the sample to BUMIGEB, which had produced a document stating that “the sample is worthless”.
The defence lawyers argued that the 8 tonnes of samples were not part of the subpoena and should not even be discussed in court. However, they point out that Essakane extracts an average of 40,000 tonnes of rock a day. 8 tonnes is insignificant, contrary to what the customs expert thinks. They asserted that Essakane had obtained authorisation from the competent authority (BUMIGEB) to export the 8 tonnes, and that it had found no drawbacks.
#Mines_Actu_Burkina
