Monrovia – When Liberia and Guinea signed the Implementation Settlement in October 2019, it was hailed as a landmark for regional cooperation — a rigorously constructed framework to make sure that any mining firm searching for to make use of Liberian rail and port infrastructure would accomplish that transparently, equitably, and in concord with each nations’ pursuits.
However quick ahead to the Concession and Entry Settlement (CAA) just lately signed between the Authorities of Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG), and questions are actually being raised over whether or not the spirit and procedures of that 2019 Settlement have been ever revered.
The Implementation Settlement: The Rulebook That Ought to Have Guided All Entry Offers
The 2019 Implementation Settlement (IA) was no ceremonial doc — it was designed because the authorized spine for all future cross-border infrastructure use between the 2 nations.
It established a transparent, multi-layered approval course of. Article 5 required a two-step process — a Request for Eligibility vetted by Guinea, adopted by a Request for Entry submitted to Liberia, reviewed by each governments’ Monitoring Committee, and endorsed by the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC).
Article 9 established these committees to stop unilateral motion and guarantee joint oversight; whereas Article 7 tasked a Technical Secretariat to develop a standardized Entry Settlement template, guaranteeing consistency and equity for all operators.
But, when the CAA emerged, there was no proof that these institutional steps have been ever adopted.
No Report of Necessary Approvals from Oversight Committees
Beneath the IA, no Entry Settlement might be deemed legitimate until reviewed and accepted by each the Monitoring Committee and the IMC.
Nonetheless, a there isn’t any public file that this course of was honored: no minutes of IMC deliberations have been revealed, o Monitoring Committee report exists within the public area.c
Officers acquainted with the settlement say there isn’t any proof that Guinea formally acknowledged HPX’s mission as an ‘Accredited Infrastructure Undertaking’ underneath Article 5.1.
As a substitute, the CAA seems to have been negotiated instantly between Liberia and HPX, successfully bypassing the very establishments created to make sure transparency and bilateral consent.
CAA Ignores the Harmonization Necessities of the Implementation Settlement
One of many Implementation Settlement’s core ideas is harmonization — aligning each nations’ legal guidelines, customs procedures, and payment buildings to make sure equity and predictability.
Article 4.1 requires non-discriminatory therapy and equal entry for Guinean operators, whereas Articles 8.2–8.3 require each nations to harmonize rules and develop frequent entry pricing and security requirements.
But the CAA, as presently structured, operates as a standalone industrial deal, with its personal tax regime, payment schedule, and operational framework — none of that are harmonized with Guinea’s legal guidelines or topic to bilateral oversight.
By setting its personal entry charges and governance construction, specialists warned that Liberia could have breached the uniform pricing precept, risking the erosion of a cooperative cross-border framework in favor of fragmented, unilateral preparations.
A Bespoke Deal, Not a Standardized Settlement
The investigation additionally discovered that Article 9.3 of the IA required a mannequin Entry Settlement to be developed earlier than any particular deal might be signed. This standardized template was meant to safeguard each states’ pursuits — protecting customs, legal responsibility, environmental safety, and dispute decision.
Nonetheless, officers say the CAA seems to be a bespoke, investor-driven contract, granting Ivanhoe unique privileges – As much as 30 million tonnes each year in capability rights, 25 + 15 years of operational tenure and in depth compensation and stabilization clauses hardly ever seen in customary infrastructure agreements.
These phrases increase a elementary query: Was Liberia performing as a sovereign companion inside a bilateral framework — or as a solo negotiator ignoring that framework altogether?
Potential Breach of Article 3.3: Unilateral Motion Prohibited
FPA additionally gathered that the Implementation Settlement explicitly prohibits both nation from taking unilateral actions that undermine the settlement’s goal.
“Neither Occasion shall signal any contract or undertake any motion that instantly or not directly restricts or prevents the total impact of this Settlement.”
In line with officers by granting Ivanhoe long-term entry rights with out Guinea’s documented concurrence, Liberia could have violated Article 3.3, undermining the bilateral dedication each nations ratified.
They famous that this transfer dangers not solely diplomatic stress but in addition potential authorized and industrial disputes, ought to Guinea declare its rights underneath the unique Implementation framework have been disregarded.
The Individuals’s Curiosity — Misplaced in Procedural Shortcuts
In line with them, these procedural lapses are usually not mere technicalities; they go to the guts of Liberia’s sovereignty and accountability. By bypassing the IA’s oversight mechanisms, they state that Liberia could have weakened institutional safeguards designed to make sure truthful valuation of nationwide belongings, eroded Guinea’s confidence within the shared hall idea; and uncovered itself to potential worldwide arbitration or compensation claims sooner or later.
Whereas the CAA guarantees advantages equivalent to transit charges and neighborhood funds, they added that Liberia’s legitimacy might be questioned if discovered inconsistent with the binding bilateral framework.
The Backside Line
The Liberia–Guinea Implementation Settlement was created to make sure that no cross-border deal can be negotiated in isolation.
But, the CAA seems to have been crafted exactly that approach — exterior the established processes, with out harmonized pricing, and with out bilateral committee approval.
If ratified in its present kind, professional warned that the CAA could not solely contradict the Implementation Settlement, but in addition set a troubling precedent: that Liberia’s worldwide commitments will be selectively utilized.
“Briefly, the CAA could also be commercially interesting — however it’s not compliant.
For the sake of legality, transparency, and long-term nationwide curiosity, Liberia can be well-advised to pause, assessment, and realign the settlement with the 2019 Implementation framework — earlier than the price of procedural shortcuts turns into far higher than the deal itself.”
