Big businesses face lawsuit for ‘bankrolling’ the Madhi Army of Iraq’s Al Sadr

▶ Charges allege Sadrist-controlled ministry sold US medicine to fund insurgency, writes Rob Crilly

Michael Chand was working in south-east Iraq as a civilian contractor for an American reconstruction programme in 2007 when his convoy was attacked by fighters believed to be loyal to cleric Moqtada Al Sadr.

At first, his family were told he was shot and killed. They later learnt he had been held hostage at a time when attacks on American forces were at their peak. His body was repatriated three years later, bearing marks of torture.

Now his widow is one of the dozens of relatives who accuse international pharmaceutical companies of helping to bankroll the Mahdi Army in its campaign of violence through kickbacks of medicine and supplies given to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was then under Mr Al Sadr’s control.

For Washington, Mr Al Sadr was the most vocal opponent of the American invasion. His militias were blamed for deadly attacks on a USbacked political opponent and soldiers, triggering an arrest warrant for murder that was never executed.

Today, he has moved away from his anti-US stance and Washington’s position has softened.

The five pharmaceutical companies deny the allegations, but this week it emerged that the US Department of Justice is investigating.

In a regulatory filing, AstraZeneca, the UK pharmaceutical company, said it had “received an inquiry from the US Department of Justice in connection with an anti-corruption investigation relating to activities in Iraq, including interactions with the Iraqi government and certain of the same matters alleged in the lawsuit”.

The suit, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia on behalf of 112 victims, seeks to hold five companies responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers from 2005 to 2009.

The defendants are General Electric, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and AstraZeneca.

“The terrorist-finance mechanism was straightforward: the terrorists openly controlled the Iraqi ministry in charge of importing medical goods, and defendants – all of which are large western medical-supply companies – obtained lucrative contracts from that ministry by making corrupt payments to the terrorists who ran it,” says the suit.

Mr Al Sadr and his Mahdi Army were officially designated as terrorists by the US. He emerged as a big player after the 2005 elections and a loyalist took control of the ministry of health.

Flags of the Mahdi Army – or Jaysh Al Mahdim – were on display at the ministry beside banners proclaiming “Death to America and Israel”. A mural of Mr Al Sadr stood at the entrance.

“Sunnis and secular technocrats alike were purged in what one witness describes as a widespread ‘occupational cleansing’,” the lawsuit alleges. “Doctors who exhibited insufficient loyalty to the Sadrists were killed or forced to flee.”

The ministry’s budget expanded rapidly with an influx of US aid – from $16 million in 2003 to more than $1 billion a year later.

The suit claims the ministry demanded a 20 per cent “religious tax” on contracts, which was paid for with donations of drugs and services.

Meanwhile, the Mahdi Army accelerated Iraq’s slide into civil war. After launching the first attacks on American forces in 2004, it was accused of running death squads against Sunnis to remove them from parts of Baghdad and carrying out a string of atrocities.

Mr Al Sadr fled to Iran and voluntary exile in 2008 for three years. On his return in 2011, US forces had left Iraq.

The cleric was able to gather public support by launching campaigns and protests against corruption within the Shiite-led government, as well as standing against Iranian influence in the country.

This year, his slate’s strong showing in elections propelled him into the role of kingmaker.

The activities of his militia are under renewed scrutiny after changes to US law demanded by relatives of people who were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. It expanded corporate civil liability under the anti-terrorism act.

The defendants have filed a court motion to dismiss the case. They say they “vigorously” deny knowingly supporting terrorism. They argue they merely answered the US government’s call to do business with the Iraqi ministry of health.