Ambiguities surround arms-to-Africa row

Who knew what about the arms to Sierra Leone scandal?

The British Government has denied further allegations about collusion by officials with mercenaries who flew weapons to Sierra Leone. The mercenary firm Sandline International says British ministers approved its operations. This has also been denied by the government. Our former West Africa correspondent David Bamford highlights some of the ambiguities surrounding the scandal.

Throughout much of its wretched post-colonial history, scant international attention has been paid to Sierra Leone. Now this tiny West African country forms the backdrop of a British political scandal in which the Foreign Office - and thus the Labour government - has become increasingly entangled.

Lurid references in newspapers to collusion with mercenaries, with the Nigerian military, with secret arms shipments via Bulgaria, all create a sinister image of British officials engaged in murky skulduggery.

But a totally different picture could also be created, of swashbuckling adventurers helping restore to power an elected government in a country seized by a harsh and hated military regime. The truth falls somewhere in between.

It's clear that the West African force that led the assault did have some backup from white mercenaries. There is ambiguity about whether arms shipments from the mercenaries to the side supporting the civilian government was a violation of a UN arms embargo that was intended to prevent weapons reaching the illegal military regime.

British diplomats on the ground in Freetown must have been aware of mercenary activity; they made no secret of their activities. Whether those officials told their ministers is another matter, as is the question, yet to be answered, of whether British diplomats actually suggested to the civilian government that a mercenary force be hired to do the job.