Liberia: Experts Question Liberia’s Deal With Ivanhoe As Legal, Bilateral Gaps Surface

Monrovia — When Liberia and Guinea signed the Implementation Agreement in October 2019, it was hailed as a landmark for regional cooperation — a carefully constructed framework to ensure that any mining company seeking to use Liberian rail and port infrastructure would do so transparently, equitably, and in harmony with both nations’ interests.

But fast forward to the Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) recently signed between the Government of Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG), and questions are now being raised over whether the spirit and procedures of that 2019 Agreement were ever respected.

The Implementation Agreement: The Rulebook That Should Have Guided All Access Deals

The 2019 Implementation Agreement (IA) was no ceremonial document — it was designed as the legal backbone for all future cross-border infrastructure use between the two countries.

It established a clear, multi-layered approval process. Article 5 required a two-step procedure — a Request for Eligibility vetted by Guinea, followed by a Request for Access submitted to Liberia, reviewed by both governments’ Monitoring Committee, and endorsed by the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC).

Article 9 established these committees to prevent unilateral action and ensure joint oversight; while Article 7 tasked a Technical Secretariat to develop a standardized Access Agreement template, guaranteeing consistency and fairness for all operators.

Yet, when the CAA emerged, there was no evidence that these institutional steps were ever followed.

No Record of Mandatory Approvals from Oversight Committees

Under the IA, no Access Agreement could be deemed valid unless reviewed and approved by both the Monitoring Committee and the IMC.

However, a there is no public record that this process was honored: no minutes of IMC deliberations have been published, o Monitoring Committee report exists in the public domain.c

Officials acquainted with the agreement say there is no evidence that Guinea officially recognized HPX’s project as an ‘Approved Infrastructure Project’ under Article 5.1.

Instead, the CAA appears to have been negotiated directly between Liberia and HPX, effectively bypassing the very institutions created to ensure transparency and bilateral consent.

CAA Ignores the Harmonization Requirements of the Implementation Agreement

One of the Implementation Agreement’s core principles is harmonization — aligning both nations’ laws, customs procedures, and fee structures to ensure fairness and predictability.

Article 4.1 calls for non-discriminatory treatment and equal access for Guinean operators, while Articles 8.2-8.3 require both countries to harmonize regulations and develop common access pricing and safety standards.

Yet the CAA, as currently structured, operates as a standalone commercial deal, with its own tax regime, fee schedule, and operational framework — none of which are harmonized with Guinea’s laws or subject to bilateral oversight.

By setting its own access fees and governance structure, experts warned that Liberia may have breached the uniform pricing principle, risking the erosion of a cooperative cross-border framework in favor of fragmented, unilateral arrangements.

A Bespoke Deal, Not a Standardized Agreement

The investigation also found that Article 9.3 of the IA required a model Access Agreement to be developed before any specific deal could be signed. This standardized template was meant to safeguard both states’ interests — covering customs, liability, environmental protection, and dispute resolution.

However, officials say the CAA appears to be a bespoke, investor-driven contract, granting Ivanhoe exclusive privileges – Up to 30 million tonnes per annum in capacity rights, 25 + 15 years of operational tenure and extensive compensation and stabilization clauses rarely seen in standard infrastructure agreements.

These terms raise a fundamental question: Was Liberia acting as a sovereign partner within a bilateral framework — or as a solo negotiator ignoring that framework altogether?

Possible Breach of Article 3.3: Unilateral Action Prohibited

FPA also gathered that the Implementation Agreement explicitly prohibits either country from taking unilateral actions that undermine the agreement’s purpose.

“Neither Party shall sign any contract or undertake any action that directly or indirectly restricts or prevents the full effect of this Agreement.”

According to officials by granting Ivanhoe long-term access rights without Guinea’s documented concurrence, Liberia may have violated Article 3.3, undermining the bilateral commitment both countries ratified.

They noted that this move risks not only diplomatic tension but also potential legal and commercial disputes, should Guinea claim its rights under the original Implementation framework have been disregarded.

The People’s Interest — Lost in Procedural Shortcuts

According to them, these procedural lapses are not mere technicalities; they go to the heart of Liberia’s sovereignty and accountability. By bypassing the IA’s oversight mechanisms, they state that Liberia may have weakened institutional safeguards designed to ensure fair valuation of national assets, eroded Guinea’s confidence in the shared corridor concept; and exposed itself to potential international arbitration or compensation claims in the future.

While the CAA promises benefits such as transit fees and community funds, they added that Liberia’s legitimacy could be questioned if found inconsistent with the binding bilateral framework.

The Bottom Line

The Liberia-Guinea Implementation Agreement was created to ensure that no cross-border deal would be negotiated in isolation.

Yet, the CAA appears to have been crafted precisely that way — outside the established processes, without harmonized pricing, and without bilateral committee approval.

If ratified in its current form, expert warned that the CAA may not only contradict the Implementation Agreement, but also set a troubling precedent: that Liberia’s international commitments can be selectively applied.

“In short, the CAA may be commercially appealing — but it is not compliant.

For the sake of legality, transparency, and long-term national interest, Liberia would be well-advised to pause, review, and realign the agreement with the 2019 Implementation framework — before the cost of procedural shortcuts becomes far greater than the deal itself.”

By FrontPageAfrica.