Monrovia — The Joint Committee reviewing the Concession and Entry Settlement (CAA) between the Authorities of Liberia and Ivanhoe Atlantic has raised critical considerations about treaty compliance, diplomatic dangers, and infrastructure governance, warning that the settlement can’t proceed with out main amendments.
In an in depth report submitted to the Senate Plenary, the Joint Committee—comprising the Committees on Transport, Concessions, Judiciary, Methods, Means, Finance and Funds, and different related panels—mentioned its overview uncovered no proof of formal engagement with the Authorities of Guinea since 2021, regardless of the settlement being essentially depending on the transshipment of Guinean iron ore by means of Liberia.
The committee was mandated to evaluate the authorized, financial, technical, fiscal, environmental, and governance implications of the proposed settlement, in addition to decide whether or not the Govt Department complied with home legal guidelines and Liberia’s treaty obligations below the Liberia–Guinea Implementation Settlement (IA).
What it’s, in easy phrases?
The Liberia–Guinea Implementation Settlement (IA) is a bilateral treaty between the Republic of Liberia and the Republic of Guinea that units the principles and establishments for shared use of transport infrastructure—primarily railways, roads, and ports—linked to cross-border mining actions.
It’s the authorized framework that governs how Guinea-based iron ore tasks can transfer minerals by means of Liberia, and the way each governments coordinate, approve, and supervise that entry.
Why it was created
Guinea has giant iron ore deposits that lack direct entry to the ocean, whereas Liberia has current rail and port infrastructure (notably the rail line to Buchanan). The IA was designed to allow transshipment of Guinean iron ore by means of Liberia, defend Liberia’s sovereignty and infrastructure and guarantee mutual consent, oversight, and advantages for each nations
The IA requires the creation of joint governance establishments, together with inter-ministerial committee made up of ministers from each nations, offers high-level political oversight and approvals, monitoring committee, opinions entry purposes, ensures compliance with agreed guidelines, points technical opinions, joint technical secretariat, develops customary entry templates and offers technical and operational steering.
These our bodies are meant to make sure that no personal firm beneficial properties entry unilaterally with out each governments’ approval.
Analysts say the IA is a global treaty, not only a coverage doc, and below Liberia’s Structure, it carries binding authorized obligations. Any concession or entry settlement (just like the Ivanhoe Atlantic CAA) should be in line with the IA. The Liberia–Guinea Implementation Settlement is the authorized spine governing cross-border mineral transport between the 2 nations. With out compliance with it, any mining entry deal is susceptible to authorized problem, diplomatic fallout, or termination.
Govt Faulted for Non-Responsiveness
The committee disclosed that repeated requests for crucial paperwork from the Govt Department went largely unanswered forward of a public listening to held on December 12, 2025.
Whereas the Ministry of Transport submitted some paperwork, the committee discovered them to be largely historic, courting again to earlier than September 2021, and inadequate to handle core compliance questions. The committee additional famous that no documentary proof was supplied to assist claims of latest engagement with Guinean authorities.
“All documentary proof earlier than the Committee signifies that the final formal communication between the Governments of Liberia and Guinea occurred in or about August 2021,” the report acknowledged.
Joint Establishments Underneath Treaty By no means Activated
A key discovering of the report facilities on Liberia’s obligations below Article 9 of the Implementation Settlement with Guinea, which mandates the creation of joint governance establishments to supervise entry to shared infrastructure.
The committee discovered no proof that the required Inter-Ministerial Committee, Monitoring Committee, or Joint Technical Secretariat was ever established or operational.
“No minutes, resolutions, technical opinions, or entry templates have been offered to display compliance,” the report mentioned, elevating critical questions on whether or not the Govt honored Liberia’s treaty commitments.
Diplomatic and Sovereignty Dangers
The committee warned that continuing with the settlement with out documented consent from Guinea exposes Liberia to diplomatic, authorized, and business dangers, noting that Guinea’s approval is indispensable to the venture’s viability.
“This absence of Guinean concurrence constitutes a cloth danger to the implementation and sustainability of the settlement,” the report cautioned.
Financial Projections Lack Unbiased Verification
The Govt projected that the settlement would generate about 400 direct jobs, practically 2,000 oblique jobs, and roughly US$1.8 billion in funds to Liberia over 25 years, with US$110 million earmarked for affected communities.
Whereas acknowledging the potential advantages, the committee mentioned the projections weren’t supported by unbiased research or verifiable assumptions.
Infrastructure, Rail, and Street Considerations
The committee expressed alarm that the proposed 25-mile heavy-haul street from the Guinea–Liberia border to Tokadeh would initially be laterite moderately than paved, elevating considerations about sturdiness, security, and environmental influence.
It additionally faulted the settlement for failing to bind Ivanhoe to a transparent timeline for establishing a rail connection from the Guinean mine to the Tokadeh rail line, regardless of feasibility research indicating a two-year development interval.
Entry Charges Deemed Too Low
Senators additionally questioned the entry charges starting from US$1.55 to US$1.95 per metric ton, describing them as doubtlessly undervaluing Liberia’s strategic rail and port infrastructure.
Though the Govt claimed the charges have been based mostly on a examine, the committee mentioned no such examine was supplied for legislative overview.
Legislative Authority at Threat
The committee raised constitutional considerations over provisions mandating the institution of a Nationwide Rail Authority (NRA) throughout the settlement, warning that embedding such selections in a concession might undermine legislative sovereignty.
“Statutory our bodies should be created by legislation, not by contract,” the report emphasised.
ArcelorMittal Rights and Coordination Gaps
The committee additionally examined the potential implications of the Ivanhoe settlement on the rights of ArcelorMittal Liberia (AML), cautioning that the Govt ought to have coordinated the passage of the AML settlement, the Rail System Working Ideas (RSOP), the NRA Act, and the CAA to keep away from conflicts.
US$37 Million Fee Raises Pink Flags
Lawmakers expressed concern over the reported US$37 million fee by Ivanhoe, together with a US$7 million fee made in December 2019, questioning whether or not there was legislative authorization on the time.
The committee warned that with out clarification, the fee may very well be construed as a mortgage, exposing the federal government to future reimbursement claims.
Conditional Approval Really useful
Regardless of the considerations, the Joint Committee advisable that the settlement be accredited provided that amended. Key amongst these suggestions embody requiring the 25-mile heavy-haul street to be absolutely paved earlier than any ore haulage begins; restructuring social contributions in order that neighborhood tasks are applied by the federal government and affected communities, not Ivanhoe; mandating development of the rail line inside two years of business manufacturing; declaring the US$37 million fee a non-refundable signature bonus;
growing entry charges to between US$2.00 and US$3.00 per ton; routinely terminating the settlement if Guinea doesn’t approve transshipment inside 5 years; and defending the Legislature’s authority over the institution of a Nationwide Rail Authority.
Senate Plenary to Determine
The report has now been submitted to the Senate Plenary, which is able to decide whether or not to concur with the Home of Representatives’ passage of the settlement below the committee’s advisable situations.
Whereas recognizing the potential financial upside of the Ivanhoe venture, the committee pressured that nationwide curiosity, sovereignty, and treaty compliance should take priority.
In the meantime, critics of the Ivanhoe–Liberia deal have applauded the Joint Committee for exercising due diligence after the invoice was handed by the Home and forwarded to the Senate for concurrence. They argue that had the Home carried out a extra thorough overview, a number of of the alleged irregularities would have been recognized earlier.
