GEORGE FORREST INTERNATIONAL S.A.

PRESS RELEASE

Mr. George FORREST, the S.P.R.L. ENTREPRISE GENERALE MALTA FORREST and the S.A. GROUP GEORGE FORREST wishes to react, by this press release, on the report made public on 21 October 2002, by the "panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo", which has been submitted to you.

With amazement and indignation, they have discovered this report and more particularly their involvement. They also vigorously object to the annexes I. and II. of the report, to the extent that they mention their names.

This intolerable sideslip causes them enormous damages and endanger their economical survival, if one does not react quickly in order to safeguard the truth and most fundamental rights.

The FORREST GROUP had already addressed, by way of a letter dated September 6, 2002, Mr. Kassem, the President of the Group of experts, in order to request to be heard by the Group of experts and to be able to provide information that the Group would need.

Unfortunately, they have never received any response or reaction to this request.

It follows therefrom that the Group of experts has condemned the FORREST GROUP without having taken the most elementary precaution of hearing them and/or interrogating them on (unjustified, see hereunder) "accusations" inserted in its report.

By acting so, the Group of experts, who is of course aware of the publicity that would surround its report, knowingly jeered at the rights of defense of the FORREST GROUP, the principle of the right to object and the rules of evidence, violating the most fundamental principles of international and national law, to which must be added the aggravating circumstance that the damage was foreseeable and, as a matter of fact, was sought after by the Group of experts.

It cannot be seriously objected that the Group of experts was under the elementary obligation to hear the FORREST GROUP on the facts that it thought it could hold against them – quod certes non – before presenting them publicly as well-established facts!

The panel of experts has breached international and national law by omitting to proceed accordingly and by refusing to act upon the request of the FORREST GROUP.

The respect of the rights of defense, the principle of the right to object and the rules of evidence was, certainly not luxury with this case, looking to the serious accusations with heavy impact, that the Group of experts has allowed itself to take to the FORREST GROUP.

2.1.

On page 9, n° 30 of the report of the Group of experts, Mr. George FORREST is presented as a businessman who belongs to an elite network, pioneer in exploitation contracts in joint venture between private companies and Gecamines and owing his commercial success to long lasting connections with the "establishment" in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Mr. George FORREST does not however belong to an elite network and besides it must be pointed out that the Group of experts has not provided even a least evidence of its gratuitous allegation. How can it blame Mr. George FORREST for having so-called long lasting connections with "the establishment" in a country, which has never ceased being in war and of which the "establishment" has changed (in function) according to such wars?

2.2.

On the same page 9, no. 30, the question arises for what reason the Group of experts has considered (it) as necessary to mention the Belgian company New Lachaussée, about which no intervention whatsoever in the RDC has been revealed. It was beyond any doubt for the dubious "pleasure" to mention that this company is engaged in the manufacturing and the sale of weapons

It is a matter of fact, that the company New Lachaussée does not manufacture weapons. It does not commercialize such products either. It manufactures only machines for the production of small metal pieces at a high rhythm and with great accuracy.

It is therefore incorrect to attribute to the New Lachaussée company and - through such company - to Mr. George FORREST the capacity of a dealer in weapons!

2.3.

The Group of Experts also blames Mr. FORREST, still on page 9, no. 30 of its report, to have accepted the mandate of President of Gecamines. It considers that Mr. FORREST would have abused a position of conflict of interests, in which he would have been, by having his private companies, between November 1999 and August 2001, negotiating new contracts with Gecamines, with the intention of using, to his personal benefit, the assets of Gecamines. During that same period of presidency, Mr. FORREST would have worked out the largest private mine portfolio in the RDC.

The Group of experts fells entitled to refer to important Belgian political support, before stating that Mr. FORREST's activities have been vividly criticized (in a diplomatic telex from one single person, consul in Lumumbashi) and that its activities have been recently examined by a Belgian Parliamentary Commission.

However Mr. George FORREST has accepted to be the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Gecamines, at the urgent request of late Mr. President Laurent Désiré Kabila. As a first reaction, (he) Mr. George FORREST had refused such position and finally he has accepted to be the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Gecamines in October 1999, because of the renewed request of the President, and provided that a Congolese General Managing Director would be appointed as the head of the Directing Committee (whereas the President also wanted to confer this responsibility to Mr. FORREST), which has been done.

During the time Mr. George FORREST took the chair of Gecamines, not a single new contract has been granted by Gecamines to companies of the FORREST GROUP (group) and none of the existing contracts has been amended, excepted a protocol of agreement related to (concerning) a project at SOFWE (feasibility study, abandoned thereafter as no profitable exploitation was conceivable).

During this period, the existing joint venture contracts with Gecamines have simply continued to be performed.

The calumny and disparagement of Mr. George FORREST thus lacks even the slightest justification.

Besides, we draw attention onto the fact that Mr. FORREST, aware of the particular situation in which he found himself, has conscientiously avoided any conflict of interest between (the) FORREST GROUP and Gecamines (performing his mandate for free; not attending the meetings of the Board of Directors when it examined issues relating to the companies of the FORREST GROUP, ...). On the contrary, he has, as Chairman and (this (in) for the interest of Gecamines, resumed (the) contacts with big mining operators such as Anglo-American, Broken Hill, Lunden, ... in order to consider possible cooperation.

The diplomatic telex the Group of experts refers, probably came from the consul of Lumumbashi and has been explicitly disputed by Mr. FORREST, not only with the Belgian authorities, but also in court by lodging a criminal complaint against the person who has ignored its diplomatic secrecy.

About the Belgian Parliamentary Commission, Mr. FORREST has requested himself to be heard and the official text of his presentation can be obtained easily from the website of the Belgian Senate (www.senat.be). It is moreover interesting to know that the Chairman of the Belgian Parliamentary Commission has qualified the conclusions of the Group of experts with regard to the Forrest Group as being weak in a statement made to the press.

2.4.

It is not out of matter to note that the accusations of the Group of experts against Mr. FORREST are not based on any single element of evidence (paper, document), except for a diplomatic telex issues by one person, consul at Lumumbashi, which resumes the same false and incorrect accusations without providing the slightest proof thereof!. Consequently, it merely deals with simple unilateral allegations disputed at the highest degree!

2.5.

On page 10, no. 43, the Group of experts attacks the S.P.R.L. ENTREPRISE GENERALE MALTA FORREST.

Although this company is mentioned in the first annex to its report (financial restrictions), not a single fact is charged or held against this company !

How can the Group of experts accuse the S.P.R.L. ENTREPRISE GENERALE MALTA FORREST in those circumstances or even refer to its name?

2.6.

The next target is the S.A. GROUPE GEORGE FORREST (named hereafter GGF) (p. 10, nos. 43-44 of the report). According to the Group of experts, GGF and the American group OMG would have constituted the most profitable joint venture in the RDC, leaving the lowest marginal profit to Gecamines.

As it appears from the rest of its presentation, the Group of experts thus ignores that Gecamines is a 20% partner of the company GTL-STL. Gecamines thus undeniably participates (in) to the profits of the company GTL-STL for its stake.

Besides, it is not all! Whereas the Group of experts considers that GGF and OMG would have given themselves access to a slagheap containing copper, cobalt and germanium, the opposite in reality follows from the contract entered into in 1997 after three years of negotiations:

1) that Gecamines sells the slag to the GTL-STL company at the market price, procuring revenues to Gecamines !

2) that the aim of the contract is to proceed during 20 years with 4 million tons of slag compared to the 16 million tons as the overall slagheap; Based on the best knowledge, the 4 millions tons of slag could have germanium contained of 500 tons, maximum (0,011%);

3) that the investment (engineering, equipment and assembly of the factory and the working capital) amounts to 145 million USD cash, of which the FORREST Group has contributed in cash 36,25 million USD;

4) that OMG has prefinanced Gecamines (namely 29 million USD), allowing its acquisition of 20 % of the shares in GTL-STL;

5) that the contract deals only with the copper and the cobalt and does not address germanium, the presence of which was however known to all at the moment the contract was entered into, but which has not been taken into account, since no process allowing a profitable exploitation, was available on the market at that time, except perhaps within the Umicore company (formerly Union Minière). Besides, the oxides of recovered zinc and the exhausted slag (both still containing a part of germanium) are returned to Gecamines for free.

GTL-STL sells the produced alloy to OMG, which pays the applicable market price.

It has appeared that in 1999, OMG has initiated a research program in order to be able to recover the part of the germanium, which can be found in the alloy sold by GTL-STL. OMG has informed Gecamines and the FORREST GROUP about this in 2000. In that framework, discussions are still going on between Gecamines, on one hand, and OMG, on the other hand, concerning the remuneration to be give to (of) Gecamines by OMG for the recovered germanium. The FORREST GROUP is not involved in these discussions and only intervenes under the request of Gecamines between its two partners as a mediator ("amiable compositeur"), in order to facilitate a commercial agreement.

2.7.

It is therefore untrue:

that Mr. George FORREST (or his companies or OMG) would have gained access to germanium through the project of GTL-STL (p. 10, no. 43);
that Gecamines would have been excluded expressly by the contract of 1997 of the revenues derived from the germanium processing, because that contract does not at all deal with germanium (p. 10, no. 43)
that the project GTL-STL would have been conceived for recovering germanium, as the factory only allows the exploitation of copper and cobalt and the restitution of the oxides of recovered zinc to Gecamines (p. 10, no. 44);
that Mr. George FORREST or the FORREST GROUP (Group) would intervene in the exploitation of germanium or would benefit from the resulting profits (p. 10, no. 44);
that Mr. George FORREST would have declined to intervene in favour of Gecamines with respect to its discussions with OMG (p. 11, no. 44)

2.8.

The Group of experts states that some Gecamines officials have complained about the fact that the initial plan for GTL-STL, which related to two smelters and one converter, has been amended.

However, this amendment has been duly decided upon common agreement by the three partners in January 1998 on the basis of productivity and profitability calculations. The smelter that has been built has moreover the capacity of the two smelters that were initially contemplated, and the converter was left out because of the Investment costs.

2.9.

Finally, the Group of experts allows itself to accuse Mr. George FORREST of an attempt to gain control over the mining sector in RDC, by referring to allegedly "reliable" sources (which remain however anonymous!). By way of example, it quotes Kinross Gold Corporation (Canada) and the Belgian company MAD, who would allegedly have been evicted from the RDC by the acts of Mr. FORREST.

The FORREST group has already contacted the people representing Kinross Gold Corporation and will have in the coming days a statement of that company, contradicting this untrue allegation.

With respect to the Belgian society MAD, nor Mr. George FORREST, nor the FORREST GROUP (group) has intervened either directly or indirectly in the activities of this company, of which he nonetheless knows that it has implanted a smelter in the RDC.

2.10.

Once more, it must be underlined that the Group of experts multiplies its accusations without being able to come up with the slightest evidence (paper, document, ...). It merely refers to anonymous rumors without even contemplating to verify their truthfulness or their evidentiary value.

It can be concluded out of the above explanations, admittedly slightly lengthy, but justified by the seriousness of the case, that respect for the rights of defense of the FORREST GROUP for the principle of the right to object and for the rules of evidence, would have permitted to provide the Group of experts with the elements of fact, the documents and the other evidence, which demonstrate, beyond any possible doubt, that the particularly serious accusations made against the FORREST GROUP lack any basis or justification and therefore, on the contrary, constitute as many gross negligences.

Faced to this evidence and facts, the Group of experts could not in any case have involved the FORREST GROUP, in the way it has done, or have put the names of M. FORREST, of the S.P.R.L. ENTREPRISE GENERALE MALTA FORREST and of the S.A. GROUPE GEORGE FORREST in the annexes I and II of its report.

The FORREST GROUP considers as scandalous to read on p. 32, n° 174-176 of the report that the Group of experts estimates to have based its findings on well established and abundant documentation, whereas the evidence concerning the FORREST GROUP is simply inexistent and is contradicted by the elements which were submitted.

The Group of expert has undoubtedly wished to hit hard, but by refusing to meet with the FORREST GROUP and to listen to them, the experts have intentionally committed very serious negligences, causing at an international level the devastation of the commercial reputation of the FORREST GROUP and endangering its economical survival, for which, without any possible discussion, the responsibility lies on the Group of experts.

The FORREST GROUP cannot but think that the Group of experts has allowed itself to be guided by maneuvers difficult to admit, which brought it to unjustified, unreasonable and disproportional conclusions, and that it therefore has acted without any respect for their legitimate interests.

Given the circumstances, the FORREST GROUP, all their rights reserved and without any detrimental recognition, has asked the Secretary General of the United Nations to intervene urgently within his Organization in order to put an end to the defamation and the assault on the honor and commercial reputation, suffered by the FORREST GROUP without any known reason.

Top