Introduction
Sayma Syrenius Cepheus has recently made allegations against Bea Mountain and the Liberian government, claiming land rights and unlawful operations. However, these claims lack legal and factual basis and appear to be part of a smear campaign aimed at undermining legitimate multinational operations within the country. This document provides a detailed rebuttal to Cepheus’ assertions, highlighting relevant legal provisions and facts.
Background on Bea Mountain’s Mineral Rights and Land Use
Bea Mountain obtained its Mineral Rights in the early 2000s.
The Mineral Development Agreement (MDA) was originally signed in 2001, amended and restated in 2013.
Under Liberian law, land was originally classified into private and public land, until in 2018 customary land ownership or title was recognized but with specific limitations.
The MDA explicitly allows mining activities on public land (Section 10.2 (a)) and recognizes the possibility of private land within the concession area, thus requiring negotiations with private landowners (Section 10.2(b)).
The total area covered by the MDA is approximately 537 square kilometers.
Engagement with Landowners
Bea Mountain has consistently engaged with private landowners affected by its operations.
An example includes land leased from the owners of the land where Kinjor and New Liberty are located, with valid lease agreements in place.
Despite the limits placed on customary land rights in land rights legislation of 2018, including the Land Rights Act, the company continues to recognize community rights by entering into land leases, e.g., with Bangoma and Massakpa villages.
Legal Framework on Land and Land Use
Land Rights Act of 2018 Highlights
Customary Land and Community Consent:
Article 33(3) states that any use of customary land requires Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) from the community, except for concessions, contracts, or permits granted before the Act’s effective date.
Existing Concessions:
Article 48(1) confirms that any portions of customary land already under concession prior to the Act remain subject to those agreements for their valid duration.
Land Disputes:
The Act outlines procedures for resolving boundary and land disputes, treating them as disputes of title between communities, with standards of proof based on preponderance of evidence (Article 37(7)).
The Liberia Land Authority (LLA) is responsible for dispute resolution, with decisions subject to judicial review (Articles 37(8) and 37(9)).
Addressing Cepheus’ Allegations
1. Claim that Ngojah Village owns land within the Bea Mountain MDA area based on a customary deed (2024).
Counter:
The land in question is primarily on customary land of Bangoma village, not Ngojah.
Bea Mountain has paid surface rental fees to the government for the entire MDA area, including portions claimed by Ngojah.
The alleged land ownership claim by Ngojah is unsubstantiated; only around 11.22 acres of the land being claimed by both Ngojah and Bangoma, likely within the concession boundary, is potentially affected, but no mining occurs on that land.
2. Allegation that Bea Mountain operates unlawfully on Ngojah land.
Counter:
Bea Mountain’s operations are on Bangoma’s customary land, not Ngojah’s. A land dispute is noted between the two towns. However, the company has maintained good relations with affected communities through leases and negotiations.
The land dispute involving Ngojah and Bangoma is under investigation by the Liberia Land Authority, with no final ruling yet.
3. Claim that the government entered into the MDA without Ngojah’s participation, making it illegal.
Counter:
The MDA was negotiated and signed in 2013, well before the 2018 Land Rights Act, and involved appropriate government bodies.
Article 22(b) of the Liberian Constitution clarifies that mineral rights belong to the state, not private landowners.
The MDA grants mineral rights, not land ownership.
Ngojah’s claim to expropriation is invalid, as the land was classified as public land at the time of the agreement.
4. Claim that the government failed to expropriate Ngojah land upon signing the MDA.
Counter:
Since the land was public and not private or customary land at the time, expropriation was unnecessary. The legal framework supports mineral rights being owned by the state, not private landowners.
Conclusion
Cepheus’ allegations lack legal merit and are inconsistent with Liberia’s land laws and the facts. Bea Mountain has acted transparently, paid all due fees, and engaged with local communities. The land dispute claims are being addressed through proper legal channels, and any attempts to politicize or distort these facts are unjustified.
Our advice:
Cepheus should cease baseless accusations, follow the proper legal procedures for land disputes, and respect Liberia’s legal framework. Blackmail and smear campaigns only undermine the rule of law and the legitimate operations that contribute to national development.
