Former British home secretary testifies in arms-for-Iraq inquiry

[SIMONA de LOGU]

LONDON (UPI) -- Former Home Secretary Kenneth Baker told a public
inquiry Tuesday that he was trying to protect intelligence sources, not
cover up government activities, when he signed special orders in an
effort to prevent the disclosure of information about British defense
sales to Iraq.
Baker told an inquiry into the sale of defense-related technology to
Iraq that corporate employees sometimes acted as government informers.
He said he signed special orders -- known as public interest immunity
certificates -- in an effort to protect those sources of intelligence.
``What I was seeking to do was to protect a class of information, not
specific information,'' Baker told the inquiry, which is being led by
Lord Chief Justice Richard Scott.
The former home secretary signed the orders in an effort to convince
a judge not to publicly disclose documents or admit oral evidence about
defense sales to Iraq if the information would threaten British
intelligence services.
``It is the duty of the home secretary to protect the security of the
information-gathering networks,'' Baker said.
He signed the two public interest immunity certificates during the
separate 1992 trials of Ordtec and Matrix Churchill executives.
Three Ordtec executives, in a plea bargain arrangement, received
suspended sentences for trying to sell an assembly line for shell fuses
to Iraq by way of Jordan. One other Ordtec executive was fined in the
case.
The Matrix Churchill executives were acquitted in their trial after
evidence showed the government had a role in encouraging the sales by
ignoring its own guidelines about the transfer of technology with
defense applications.
Baker further defended his actions by saying he signed the immunity
certificates with the full approval of the attorney general. Judges of
the trials upheld his decision to withold certain types of evidence,
saying it was ``a reasonable claim to be made,'' Baker added.
He emphasized the judges ultimately decided what evidence was
admissible. Public interest immunity certificates are designed to
persuade judges not to admit certain evidence, but it is not imperative
for the judge to abide by them.
Asked why the certificates referred to a class of evidence rather
than specific items of evidence, Baker said he was not aware of the
details of the trials in order for him to be more specific.
He also said it was not his duty as home secretary to judge the
soundness of a case procedure. He reiterated it was up to the judge to
decide whether a particular piece of evidence was crucial to the case of
the prosecution or the defense.