Lack of Committee Approvals and Harmonization Raises Fresh Questions Over Controversial Ivanhoe–Liberia Access Deal
IPNEWS: Fresh concerns are emerging over the legality and transparency of the Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) signed between the Government of Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG), as evidence grows that the deal may not have passed through the mandatory approval structures established under the 2019 Liberia–Guinea Implementation Agreement.
The Implementation Agreement, signed by both governments to govern all cross-border use of Liberia’s rail and port infrastructure, stipulates that no Access Agreement can legally exist without review by the joint Monitoring Committee and final endorsement by Liberia’s Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC). These bodies were created to ensure that no mining company secured access to Liberia’s railway or port facilities without coordinated oversight from both countries.
However, there is no public indication that either of these bodies reviewed or approved the CAA before it was announced. Government officials in both Monrovia and Conakry have released no minutes, reports or communiqués showing that the IMC deliberated on the deal or that the Monitoring Committee carried out the joint assessment required under the agreement. Analysts note that this absence of procedural documentation is unusual given the mandatory nature of the oversight structure.
The Implementation Agreement also requires the Government of Guinea to formally declare any project seeking access to Liberia’s infrastructure an “Approved Infrastructure Project.” That declaration is the very first step in the eligibility process and triggers the bilateral review mechanism. To date, no such declaration has been made public, raising further doubts about whether the HPX project ever entered the approval pipeline envisioned under Article 5.1 of the agreement.
Instead, the CAA appears to have been negotiated directly between the Government of Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia, with limited evidence of joint engagement with Guinea. Sector observers say this approach sidesteps the institutions created in 2019 precisely to prevent unilateral action and ensure that cross-border infrastructure decisions are handled collaboratively.
Beyond the concerns over approval, the content of the CAA itself has raised additional questions about its alignment with the harmonization requirements of the Implementation Agreement. One of the core principles of the 2019 framework is that both governments must harmonize laws, customs procedures and fee structures to ensure consistent and fair access for all Guinean mining operators. The agreement obliges Liberia and Guinea to jointly develop uniform access pricing, safety standards and regulatory conditions that apply equally to all users of Liberia’s infrastructure.
Yet the CAA was drafted as a standalone commercial contract, carrying its own fee schedule, tax arrangements and operational rules that do not appear to be harmonized with Guinean law or reviewed through any bilateral structure. Analysts warn that by setting its own access fees outside of the harmonized framework, Liberia may have departed from the uniform pricing principle that the Implementation Agreement was designed to enforce.
The move could create a situation where each government negotiates separate access terms with mining companies, weakening the cooperative model both countries committed to in 2019. Legal experts say such a precedent may make future cross-border agreements more difficult to manage and could undermine the predictability that mining investors and governments rely on.
As the questions mount, neither government has offered public clarification on whether the CAA passed through the required committees or whether the harmonization obligations were considered during negotiations. With the Concession and Access Agreement now at the center of policy debate, calls are growing for both countries to reveal how the deal was approved and whether it fully complies with the legal framework that governs cross-border infrastructure use.
Monrovia – Fresh concerns are emerging over the legality and transparency of the Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) signed between the Government of Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG), as evidence grows that the deal may not have passed through the mandatory approval structures established under the 2019 Liberia–Guinea Implementation Agreement.
The Implementation Agreement, signed by both governments to govern all cross-border use of Liberia’s rail and port infrastructure, stipulates that no Access Agreement can legally exist without review by the joint Monitoring Committee and final endorsement by Liberia’s Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC). These bodies were created to ensure that no mining company secured access to Liberia’s railway or port facilities without coordinated oversight from both countries.
However, there is no public indication that either of these bodies reviewed or approved the CAA before it was announced. Government officials in both Monrovia and Conakry have released no minutes, reports or communiqués showing that the IMC deliberated on the deal or that the Monitoring Committee carried out the joint assessment required under the agreement. Analysts note that this absence of procedural documentation is unusual given the mandatory nature of the oversight structure.
The Implementation Agreement also requires the Government of Guinea to formally declare any project seeking access to Liberia’s infrastructure an “Approved Infrastructure Project.” That declaration is the very first step in the eligibility process and triggers the bilateral review mechanism. To date, no such declaration has been made public, raising further doubts about whether the HPX project ever entered the approval pipeline envisioned under Article 5.1 of the agreement.
Instead, the CAA appears to have been negotiated directly between the Government of Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia, with limited evidence of joint engagement with Guinea. Sector observers say this approach sidesteps the institutions created in 2019 precisely to prevent unilateral action and ensure that cross-border infrastructure decisions are handled collaboratively.
Beyond the concerns over approval, the content of the CAA itself has raised additional questions about its alignment with the harmonization requirements of the Implementation Agreement. One of the core principles of the 2019 framework is that both governments must harmonize laws, customs procedures and fee structures to ensure consistent and fair access for all Guinean mining operators. The agreement obliges Liberia and Guinea to jointly develop uniform access pricing, safety standards and regulatory conditions that apply equally to all users of Liberia’s infrastructure.
Yet the CAA was drafted as a standalone commercial contract, carrying its own fee schedule, tax arrangements and operational rules that do not appear to be harmonized with Guinean law or reviewed through any bilateral structure. Analysts warn that by setting its own access fees outside of the harmonized framework, Liberia may have departed from the uniform pricing principle that the Implementation Agreement was designed to enforce.
The move could create a situation where each government negotiates separate access terms with mining companies, weakening the cooperative model both countries committed to in 2019. Legal experts say such a precedent may make future cross-border agreements more difficult to manage and could undermine the predictability that mining investors and governments rely on.
As the questions mount, neither government has offered public clarification on whether the CAA passed through the required committees or whether the harmonization obligations were considered during negotiations. With the Concession and Access Agreement now at the center of policy debate, calls are growing for both countries to reveal how the deal was approved and whether it fully complies with the legal framework that governs cross-border infrastructure use.
