The Implementation Agreement: A Framework for Regional Cooperation
When Liberia and Guinea signed the Implementation Agreement in October 2019, it was celebrated as a milestone in regional cooperation. This carefully designed framework aimed to ensure that any mining company using Liberian rail and port infrastructure would do so transparently, equitably, and in harmony with both nations’ interests.
However, the recent signing of the Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) between the Government of Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG) has raised concerns about whether the principles of the 2019 agreement were truly upheld.
The 2019 Implementation Agreement: A Rulebook for Future Deals
The 2019 Implementation Agreement (IA) was not just a ceremonial document; it served 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 outlined 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 created these committees to prevent unilateral action and ensure joint oversight, while Article 7 tasked a Technical Secretariat with developing 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 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, there is no public record that this process was honored: no minutes of IMC deliberations have been published, and no Monitoring Committee report exists in the public domain.
Officials familiar 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 Harmonization Requirements of the Implementation Agreement
One of the core principles of the Implementation Agreement 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
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, experts 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.”