Open letter to Nick Trew, CEO Pathfinder Minerals

Dear Mr Trew

Ahead of the EGM that was requisitioned last Tuesday, I write to you in an open forum so as to give all PFP shareholders the opportunity to weigh up the points detailed here and your answers (if any).

Firstly, in looking at the last few years report and accounts I note that you have been taking (or accruing), in my eyes a completely unjustifiable, £170,000 per annum in salary. Together with NI contributions by the company and no doubt expenses and with Mr Bellingham’s take of near £50,000, please attempt to justify such a clearly disproportionate remuneration package given the company has zero revenues, zero operations and only ongoing legal costs

Secondly, in relation to the Eduardo Mondlane Jnr contract the company signed with him – please update your shareholders with precisely what has been achieved by this chap since his appointment? As you are aware, I have sight of the letter from Pathfinder Mozambique SA in which it is clear there is no negotiation between this entity (in which the licences reside) and he. Just how much in monetary terms has been paid to him?

As you are now abundantly aware, PM SA have made crystal clear that they will not negotiate with you and Bellingham. With this in mind, as a fellow shareholder and given the duty incumbent upon you as a current Director to act in the best interests of the Company, please advise how your remaining in office is in the best interests of shareholders? Your departure would not halt the process of the legal proceedings (the current direction of which we do actually have concerns over incidentally) in Mozambique but, more importantly, would also give the company a good shot at renewed good faith negotiations and which PM SA has already committed to engage in subject to Board changes. The latter clearly does not apply at this time.

Can you comment on just how much has been spent with Travers Smith and other legal advisers this last 7 years – we estimate in excess of £5m. Given that we have gone largely nowhere since the initial court ruling in the UK, how do you justify this magnitude of expenditure and why have you not explored litigation funding route for example with a third party or a CFA with other law firms as opposed to continued shareholder dilution?

As was revealed yesterday, it seems that you are/have been planning a capital raise at 0.6p in recent days even though we have represented that we stand ready to inject funds at 1p and I have made clear the legal repercussions should you pursue this avenue which many would see as a blatant attempt to subvert the current voting power at the forthcoming GM. In this vein, can you confirm if any of the recent placee participants were associates/related parties of yours?

I look forward to your reply and will post in full the comments thereof should you deem it appropriate to address your shareholders and the company owners.

R Jennings

• Pathfinder Minerals