IPNEWS: When the Ministry of Justice appeared before the Joint Committee of the House of Representatives to argue that the Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) between the Government of Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG) was merely a domestic arrangement with a local company, it attempted to draw a line between the CAA and the Implementation Agreement (IA) signed between Liberia and Guinea in October 2019.
That assertion is not only factually incorrect but also dangerously misleading. It disregards the entire legal foundation upon which the CAA exists, and it risks plunging Liberia into diplomatic embarrassment and potential treaty violation with its neighbor, Guinea.
1. The CAA Itself Recognizes the Implementation Agreement
The Ministry’s position collapses under the weight of the CAA’s own language.
In the first paragraph of its Preamble, the CAA explicitly acknowledges that Liberia and Guinea entered into an Implementation Agreement in October 2019, which was subsequently ratified by the Liberian Legislature on 6 May 2021. This acknowledgment is not decorative—it is foundational.
Without the Implementation Agreement, there could be no legal basis for Liberia to enter into any “access” arrangement allowing iron ore from Guinea to be transported through Liberian territory. The IA is the source document that establishes:
- the legal framework for cross-border mineral transport,
- the institutional mechanisms for evaluating and approving access requests, and
- the procedural obligations of both Governments before any access is granted.
Thus, to argue that the CAA is a purely domestic concession agreement is to deny the very instrument that gives it life.
The Implementation Agreement is not an optional background text—it is the legal womb from which the CAA was born.
2. Ivanhoe Liberia Has No Mineral Rights in Liberia
The next point of fatal contradiction in the Ministry’s argument lies in the nature of Ivanhoe Liberia (also called Ivanhoe Atlantic).
This entity, incorporated in Liberia, has no mineral rights, no mining license, and no iron ore deposits in Liberia. It is not a producer, exporter, or concessionaire within Liberia’s borders.
The CAA exists for one purpose only: to allow the transport of iron ore from Guinea through Liberian territory to the Port of Buchanan.
That means the underlying mineral product is Guinean, the project’s origin is Guinean, and the right of access arises from Guinea’s sovereign territory.
Without Guinea’s consent, there is no lawful basis for Liberia to agree to transport Guinean iron ore across its territory. The Implementation Agreement governs that very circumstance—it defines the obligations of both states when a Guinean operator seeks access to Liberian infrastructure.
Hence, to call the CAA “domestic” is not only inaccurate; it is a deliberate attempt to obscure Liberia’s international obligations.
3. The Implementation Agreement Defines Who Liberia May Deal With
Under Article 2.1 of the Implementation Agreement, a “Mining Operator” is defined as:
“An entity, either private or public, to which an authorization is granted by Guinea to construct, maintain, and/or operate all or part of a Mining Infrastructure according to the terms and conditions of the granted authorization.”
This definition is crucial. It means that Liberia, under the IA, may only deal with the Guinean-licensed Mining Operator—in this case, Société des Mines de Fer de Guinée (SMFG), the HPX-controlled entity that holds the Guinean iron ore mining license.
But the CAA is not signed with SMFG alone. Instead, it is signed with Ivanhoe Liberia, a shell company incorporated in Liberia—one that does not meet the IA’s definition of a “Mining Operator.”
By signing the CAA with Ivanhoe Liberia rather than SMFG alone, the Government of Liberia bypassed the explicit intent of Article 2.1 and the entire framework of Article 5, which details how requests for access are to be processed.
Ivanhoe Liberia appears to serve merely as a middleman—a pass-through entity that allows HPX/SMFG to interface with Liberia indirectly. This structure raises serious questions:
- Why did Liberia not sign directly with SMFG, the legally authorized Mining Operator?
- What indemnities or guarantees does Ivanhoe Liberia offer in the event of default or environmental damage?
- Does Ivanhoe Liberia have the balance sheet or technical capacity to operate such a major cross-border logistics venture?
These questions go to the heart of risk management and accountability—and the Ministry of Justice’s simplistic “domestic agreement” defense does not answer any of them.
4. The IA Outlines a Clear Bilateral Process — Which Was Ignored
The Implementation Agreement lays out a step-by-step process in Article 5 – Review of Requests for Access.
It provides that:
- a Guinean Mining Operator (like SMFG) must submit a Request for Access to its own Government (Guinea);
- the request must then be reviewed jointly through the Monitoring Committee and Inter-Ministerial Committee;
- Liberia must make its decision within 30 business days (or 90 days if infrastructure works are involved), taking into account the Appraisal done through these joint bodies; and
- if delays occur, Liberia must inform the Monitoring Committee and reach a new timeline by consensus.
Additionally, Article 9.2.3–9.2.5 mandates that:
- the Monitoring Committee ensures compliance and consistency with fiscal and pricing principles,
- the Inter-Ministerial Committee receives recommendations from the Monitoring Committee and makes decisions that each country will then implement, and
- each Party undertakes to enforce proposals endorsed by both Parties.
If these joint institutions were not engaged, then Liberia has violated the Implementation Agreement’s procedure.
It cannot be “domestic” when the process itself is bilateral by design.
The Ministry of Justice’s attempt to separate the CAA from the IA is therefore not only factually wrong—it is a tacit admission that the IA’s institutional framework was ignored.
5. Guinea’s Silence Is Not Consent
Since the 2021 coup in Guinea, there has been no record of engagement between the Liberian Government and the transitional authorities in Conakry regarding the Implementation Agreement.
If the Monitoring and Inter-Ministerial Committees were not convened, if Guinea’s representatives were not involved in the Appraisal, and if no communication confirming Guinea’s concurrence exists, then Liberia has acted unilaterally in a matter that is inherently bilateral.
Guinea could easily reject the CAA on procedural grounds, claiming it violates the Implementation Agreement that both countries signed and ratified.
Such a rejection would not only invalidate the CAA’s cross-border applicability but also embarrass Liberia diplomatically and jeopardize future bilateral cooperation on mining and infrastructure.
6. The Hidden Motive: The December 2025 IPO
Behind the legal posturing lies a more cynical reality.
Ivanhoe/HPX is reportedly racing to list an Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the Australian Securities Exchange by December 2025, targeting a US$200 million raise.
The signed CAA, whether valid or not, forms part of the company’s prospectus story—a showcase to investors that it has secured a logistics corridor for Guinean iron ore exports through Liberia.
In this context, HPX’s pressure on the Liberian Government makes perfect sense.
The company’s goal is not necessarily to begin iron ore shipment from Guinea, but to use the CAA’s existence—even if procedurally flawed—as leverage to raise capital.
In other words, Liberia’s sovereignty and diplomatic integrity are being commodified to support a private company’s fundraising narrative.
7. The Ministry of Justice’s Dereliction of Duty
The role of the Ministry of Justice is to serve as the principal legal advisor to the Government and to ensure that all agreements, especially international ones, comply with Liberia’s laws and treaties.
By attempting to detach the CAA from the Implementation Agreement, the Ministry is shirking this responsibility.
It is defending a procedural violation rather than upholding Liberia’s legal and diplomatic integrity.
A more appropriate position for the Ministry would have been to:
- Acknowledge the bilateral foundation of the CAA,
- Request a post-facto validation from the Guinean authorities, and
- Ensure that the Monitoring Committee and Inter-Ministerial Committee processes are formally reactivated before ratification.
Instead, the Ministry chose to downplay the treaty obligation—a move that, if left unchecked, could have serious consequences for Liberia’s credibility as a treaty-respecting nation.
8. Why This Matters for Liberia
Liberia has long sought to position itself as a reliable partner for regional integration and investment.
The Mano River Union framework, ECOWAS protocols, and the African Continental Free Trade Agreement all depend on member states honoring cross-border commitments.
If Liberia now proceeds to ratify the CAA without clear evidence of compliance with the Implementation Agreement:
- It risks being seen as a bad-faith actor in regional cooperation;
- It may invite Guinea’s formal protest or repudiation of the agreement; and
- It exposes itself to potential arbitration or suspension of the Implementation Agreement itself.
The reputational damage could outweigh any short-term economic gains.
9. The Correct Course of Action
The Legislature should not ratify the CAA until the following are confirmed:
- Documentary evidence that the Monitoring and Inter-Ministerial Committees met and reviewed the Request for Access;
- Official communication from the Government of Guinea confirming its awareness and participation in the process; and
- Legal vetting ensuring that the signatory entity (Ivanhoe Liberia) qualifies as a “Mining Operator” under Article 2.1 of the Implementation Agreement.
Anything short of this would be procedurally invalid, and any ratification would expose Liberia to avoidable diplomatic and legal risk.
10. Conclusion: Truth vs. Convenience
The Ministry of Justice’s statement that the CAA is a “domestic agreement” is a textbook example of legal sophistry in the service of political convenience.
It attempts to simplify a complex international framework into a domestic transaction, perhaps to shield the Government from scrutiny over its procedural lapses.
But the truth is undeniable:
- The CAA exists only because of the 2019 Implementation Agreement.
- The iron ore involved originates in Guinea, not Liberia.
- The rights and processes are bilateral, not domestic.
- And the Implementation Agreement is the indispensable legal backbone of the entire cross-border arrangement.
To disregard it is to play diplomacy by deceit — a gamble that could backfire disastrously.
The Legislature must therefore insist on transparency, adherence to treaty obligations, and procedural integrity before any ratification. Anything less would not just undermine the rule of law — it would betray Liberia’s credibility in the community of nations.
