EDITORIAL: GoL Must Be Careful Handling Lingering Railroad Saga

THE REPORTED RECENT decision by the Government of Liberia to withdraw its communication reaffirming ArcelorMittal Liberia (AML) as the user-operator of the Yekepa–Buchanan railway is not just a procedural misstep but a major blow to the credibility of the Liberian government’s investment climate. It should be an embarrassment to the Government of Liberia, as it questions its consistency on key investment decisions and its commitment to binding legal agreements. Certainly it looks too odd and irresponsible of a government to reverse an earlier position advanced by Liberia’s Inter-Ministerial Concessions Committee (IMCC), which had concluded, after more than seven years of technical discussions that AML should remain as the operator of the country’s most strategic railway corridor.

FROM ALL RECORDS available, the IMCC’s decision was not arbitrary. It was based on the legal provisions of the Third Amendment to AML’s Mineral Development Agreement (MDA), which includes a detailed and Government-approved framework known as the Rail System Operating Principles (RSOP). The RSOP, now at the heart of the controversy, is a model designed specifically to support Liberia’s transition to a multi-user rail system. It provides for third-party access, Government oversight, and cost-based operation of the railway—addressing both national interest and investor protection.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO supported the IMCC’s position argue that the RSOP already achieves the goals set out in Executive Order No. 136, which called for an open and transparent rail system. Critics of the reversal question why the Government would abruptly abandon such a model after years of negotiation, legal drafting, and ratification by the Legislature.

THE RSOP ACTUALLY provides, under the existing agreement, that the Government has sole authority to approve access to the railway. No company, including AML, can block others from using it; that AML is obligated to operate the railway on a no-profit, no-loss basis, meaning it does not make money from transporting others’ goods, that all users are subject to the same operating standards set by Government regulators, that a Joint Management Committee, with representatives from the Government and all railway users, oversees rail operations, and that the Government retains the power to remove AML if it fails to meet performance standards.

IN SHORT, THE current structure already guarantees fair access, protects state control, and ensures accountability—without the need to strip AML of its operator role.

THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT community has reacted cautiously to the reversal, but many view it as a red flag. Some financial analysts have warned that Liberia risks being seen as a jurisdiction where contracts are unstable and political interests override commercial logic. “This kind of U-turn, after years of formal engagement, is deeply damaging,” said one West Africa-focused investor familiar with the AML deal. “It gives the impression that Liberia does not take its own legal processes seriously.”

HAS THE GOVERNMENT of Liberia forgotten that, locally, the fallout is equally stark, that ArcelorMittal Liberia is the country’s largest private investor and the single biggest employer in the formal sector, with over 7,000 Liberians directly employed and thousands more indirectly supported, and that the company has spent over 800 million US dollars on infrastructure, port development, and community projects?

MANY LIBERIANS ARE now asking what signal this sends to other companies considering investment in the country, with a growing concern over what happens if AML decides to scale down operations or reconsider its Phase II expansion in response to what it may see as an unfriendly political climate just as Buchanan Renewables famously did down after political and regulatory uncertainties, leaving behind unpaid workers and half-finished projects.

WE WONDER IF those supporting the reversal of GoL on the duly legislated deal know the magnitude of problem created if AML were to follow that path, the impact on jobs, government revenue, and community development would be profound. While some see the move as part of a broader attempt to accommodate Ivanhoe Atlantic—a mining company aiming to move Guinean ore through Liberian territory—critics are urging caution. For instance, Guinea’s agreement with its own mining partners makes it clear that using Liberia’s corridor is temporary and conditional. Clause 26.7 of Guinea’s SMFG Agreement explicitly states that access via Liberia is not guaranteed long term. In effect, Liberia may be compromising a long-standing, legally grounded partnership with AML to facilitate an arrangement that Guinea itself may cancel at any time.

IVANHOE’S LOBBYING REPORTEDLY includes pressure on the Government to replace AML with an “independent rail operator.” But questions remain unanswered. Who will pay this new operator? Will it have the technical capacity to manage Liberia’s longest railway? And why disrupt a functioning arrangement to install an untested one?

SOURCES CLOSE TO the sector suggest that any such a move could place new financial burdens on the state or create a vacuum that disrupts ore transportation entirely. Lest we forget, Liberia’s Constitution and international obligations are clear: contracts must be honoured. The Mineral Development Agreement with AML is a legal document ratified by the National Legislature. If the Government genuinely believes the operator arrangement needs to change, it must pursue that through a renegotiation process—not through unilateral policy reversals.

FAILURE TO DO so not only invites litigation, but it also places Liberia’s entire legal framework under scrutiny.

AS THE DUST SETTLES, the Government faces a difficult reality: the world is watching. Investors are taking notes. Liberians are asking tough questions. And AML, with all its assets, infrastructure, and employees, remains at the heart of the country’s economic engine. Thus, rather than push away a proven partner, Liberia has the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to transparency, contract stability, and economic development. Because, in the end, it is not just about a railway. It is about Liberia’s image, future, and ability to compete for meaningful, long-term investment.

THIS IS WHY we think wisdom should prevail. Now!

Please follow and like us: