GoL-Ivanhoe Deal Sparks Concerns -Pundits Say ‘Secret Sunday Signing’ Raises Sovereignty Questions

MONROVIA –  Investments, be it national and foreign capital, are good for any country’s growth and development, economic pundits would say, but not without order, common sense, respect for signed agreements, and commitment to fair play. That’s the dilemma Liberia is faced with in the aftermath of what observers say is Government’s ‘secret’ signing of a concession reportedly worth over one billion US Dollars, thus leaving more questions and more confusion, as The Analyst reports.

In a move that has provoked widespread outcry, the Government of Liberia quietly signed a major infrastructure agreement with Ivanhoe Atlantic (formerly High Power Exploration, or HPX) last weekend, granting the company access to Liberia’s key railway and port for exporting iron ore from neighbouring Guinea.

The signing took place behind closed doors on Sunday, a non-working day, with journalists initially invited then barred from witnessing the event.

The secretive weekend timing has drawn sharp criticism from civil society and opposition figures, who accuse the government of deliberate opacity in one of the country’s most consequential deals in years.

Officials now face mounting questions over the deal’s legality, its benefit to Liberia, and the implications for national sovereignty.

The Ivanhoe rail agreement caps years of stalled negotiations.

For over six years, two successive Liberian administrations struggled to advance any deal, hamstrung by unresolved issues that linger even now. Chief among them is uncertainty over Guinea’s consent.

The rail corridor in question would carry Guinean iron ore across Liberia to the Port of Buchanan, but it remains unclear if the Guinean government has formally authorized such exports.

A 2019 bilateral framework between Guinea and Liberia allowed only a limited 5 million tons per year of Guinean ore to transit via Liberia. Yet the newly inked Ivanhoe deal reportedly envisions up to 30 million tons annually, a six-fold increase beyond that prior cap.

There is no official or public evidence that Conakry has approved this dramatic escalation.

Moreover, Guinea is rapidly constructing its own dedicated iron ore railway to a Guinean Atlantic port. The 536 km dual-track Trans-Guinean rail line (built by the Simandou consortium of Chinese and international firms) has just completed track-laying and is slated to begin carrying ore by late 2025.

That megaproject, designed for over 100 million tons per year, raises doubts about Guinea’s appetite to divert any significant volume through Liberia’s corridor. These unanswered questions – Does Guinea support the Ivanhoe plan, and if so, why hasn’t it been directly engaged? Would Guinea even utilize Liberian rails when its own modern line is near completion? – have only heightened skepticism in Monrovia.

The controversy is compounded by what critics call a betrayal of ArcelorMittal Liberia (AML), the country’s largest foreign investor and operator of the very rail line now at stake.

AML’s 25-year Mineral Development Agreement (MDA), signed in 2005 and valid through 2030, granted it rights to rehabilitate and exclusively operate the 243 km Yekepa–Buchanan railway.

Over nearly two decades, ArcelorMittal poured significant capital into reviving this war-ruined infrastructure, investing about $3 billion in Liberia to date (including roughly $800 million on railway and port upgrades).

Reportedly, the company has modernized the rail corridor with new bridges, tracks, and equipment, and is in the midst of a $1.8 billion expansion to boost Liberia’s own iron ore output from 5 million to 20 million tonnes per year. Under AML’s plan, it has already upgraded the rail’s capacity to 30 million tonnes annually in anticipation of future growth, the same volume now promised to Ivanhoe.

Vexing Concerns

Meanwhile, independent and as well as inside government sources worried and concerned, raising doubts on feasibility and logic of the actions taken.

One source asked: “At what tariff has Government of Liberia given the Ivanhoe access to the rail? Where is the benchmarked? ?Don’t officials involved in the drafting of the deal know that any allocation of capacity for Guinea Ore will rob Liberia of its economic benefit from its infrastructure, which is the only infrastructure developed by AML? Has Government first asked current users for its expansion plans before given things out to Ivanhoe?”

Pundits say they are raising those questions because the ⁠Government of Liberia signed 3rd amendment with AML with payment of massive non-refundable money payment for reserving additional 15mtpa over its original 15mtpa.

“Why is Government now signing 30mtpa so cheaply and that too refundable money whereas AML’s Liberian ore will generate massive capital investment, jobs, taxes, royalties, and many other benefits?” another independent observe asked rhetorically. “Who is driving these negotiations and compromising Liberia’s interest? Why is the Ivanhoe agreement a national priority over AMLs amendment which is languishing for years with government for some or other bureaucratic obstacles?”

Liberia’s Benefit Blow Off

The AML long-term investment has yielded substantial benefits for Liberia: over 7,000 jobs (95% held by Liberians) and hundreds of millions in revenues and community development projects.

Against that backdrop, pundits argued, granting a third-party operator access without AML’s agreement appears to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of AML’s contract. Government insiders acknowledge the Ivanhoe agreement may run afoul of provisions in AML’s MDA, including AML’s contractual right of first refusal on any rail expansion and its option to extend the operating agreement beyond 2030.

Unilaterally stripping AML of operational control before the concession expires would breach Liberia’s commitments, potentially exposing the government to protracted legal battles. A recent inter-ministerial committee had in fact warned that removing AML as rail operator would undermine the rule of law and scare off investors by signaling that Liberia’s agreements can be overturned on a whim.

“No credible investor wants to operate where agreements can be overturned overnight,” one official noted in explaining the decision to uphold AML’s rights just months ago. Now, that principle is seen to be in jeopardy.

Letters from concerned officials have reportedly been sent to President Joseph Boakai, outlining how the Ivanhoe deal prejudices AML’s contractual position, by preempting AML’s expansion plans and sidelining it as rail operator, and urging reconsideration to avoid a damaging breach of contract.

If enforced, the Ivanhoe deal could drag Liberia into costly litigation and erode the country’s already fragile investment climate, critics warn.

At the heart of the dispute is a striking imbalance between what Ivanhoe Atlantic stands to gain and what Liberia risks losing. Ivanhoe (through HPX) controls the rich Mount Nimba iron ore deposit just across the border in Guinea and has been eager to establish a transport route to the sea.

But notably, Ivanhoe has no existing operations or capital investment in Liberia. Rather than finance new infrastructure, the company’s strategy hinges on piggybacking off AML’s fully functional rail line.

Analysts suspect Ivanhoe’s interest is largely short-term – to export its Guinean ore stockpiles as quickly as possible, potentially boosting the value of its Guinean assets for an eventual sale, and then exit Liberia.

“HPX’s aim is to move its ore from Nimba currently stockpiled in Guinea, and that would be the end of their association with Liberia,” one expert familiar with the project observed, noting that Guinea’s own rail developments mean Ivanhoe may have little incentive to invest in Liberia’s long-term growth.

By contrast, ArcelorMittal’s presence has been a long-haul partnership; one that continues to expand Liberia’s industrial capacity and revenue base. Under AML’s pending amended agreement (which is still being negotiated), Liberia would eventually earn up to $200 million per year in revenues and royalties as AML ramps up production.

Ivanhoe’s offer, however, pales in comparison. According to officials, the Ivanhoe/HPX proposal would yield only on the order of $5–10 million per year in transit fees for Liberia.

Beyond vague promises of job creation and making Liberia a “regional transshipment hub”, there has been little detail on how the Ivanhoe deal substantially benefits the Liberian economy.

“The company claims the agreement could boost mining, agriculture and other sectors, but we’ve seen no concrete commitments,” said an industry analyst, who pointed out that Ivanhoe Atlantic’s projections rely on exporting foreign ore with minimal value addition in Liberia.

Given the meager fees and unclear local investment, critics argue the real beneficiaries of this deal lie outside Liberia; chiefly Ivanhoe and its shareholders, while Liberia shoulders the infrastructure burden and legal risks.

“What Liberia stands to gain remains murky at best, but what it stands to lose is far clearer – control over a strategic asset, credibility with investors, and its leverage in future negotiations,” the analyst added.

The Ivanhoe saga has also taken on a geopolitical dimension that is raising eyebrows. Although Ivanhoe Atlantic is registered as a U.S.-based company, its corporate lineage and backing cast a long shadow.

The firm’s parent, Ivanhoe Mines Ltd., was founded by Canadian mining magnate Robert Friedland, but today nearly 35% of Ivanhoe Mines’ equity is held by Chinese-linked entities, including a ~12.2% stake by Hong Kong–based Zijin Mining Group and ~22.3% by China’s CITIC Bank.

An even larger portion (over 50%) of Ivanhoe’s ownership is not publicly disclosed, fueling speculation about hidden Chinese state interests.

Ivanhoe Atlantic itself only adopted its current name in December 2024 as part of what its CEO Bronwyn Barnes calls an “inclusion into the Ivanhoe group.

While the company insists it has no Chinese state-owned shareholders and is fully transparent, the prospect of a Chinese-financed iron corridor to the Atlantic via Liberia has alarmed some observers in both Monrovia and Washington.

“If Ivanhoe gains control of Liberia’s railway, it could provide Chinese-backed firms access to strategic Atlantic ports, further expanding China’s reach in West Africa,” warned a U.S. expert familiar with the deal, noting China already has a strong foothold in Guinea’s mining sector.

Ironically, the United States government, typically wary of expanding Chinese influence in Africa appears to have supported the Ivanhoe deal.

Ivanhoe Atlantic enjoys official “Commercial Advocacy” status from the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia, meaning American diplomats have backed the company’s bid as a U.S. commercial interest.

In a statement, Ivanhoe confirmed it is “appropriately supported by the U.S. Embassy” but emphasized that no U.S. officials were directly involved in the Liberian negotiations.

Still, this U.S. endorsement has struck many Liberians as peculiar.

“The U.S. is pushing Liberia to hand over its rail to a company tied to Chinese investors, it’s a baffling contradiction,” said a Liberian policy expert, referencing Washington’s broader rhetoric about countering China.

Indeed, as former U.S. President Donald Trump ramps up a campaign to curb China’s global influence, this obscure mining deal in Liberia has drawn notice in American political circles. Trump-aligned media recently claimed that “pro-China deep state” actors within the U.S. State Department were pressuring Liberia on Ivanhoe’s behalf. The controversy has thus evolved into a proxy battleground for great-power influence, with Liberia’s rail line at the center.

The fallout from the Ivanhoe agreement has been swift and fierce. Key Liberian stakeholders, from opposition politicians to civil society leaders and even members of the ruling establishment, are calling for the deal to be paused and scrutinized openly.

Some senior pundits of the Boakai government have publicly voiced reservations about the agreement, indicating a split within the administration over its merits.

A coalition of advocacy groups and concerned citizens is planning demonstrations under the slogan “Enough is Enough,” demanding answers and accountability.

They insist that such a far-reaching concession should not advance without full disclosure of its terms and a thorough public debate.

Specifically, critics have raised pointed questions about the Ivanhoe deal’s legitimacy and impact, including:

• Why was the agreement signed in secrecy on a Sunday? Observers view the timing and lack of press access as a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny. They question what urgency or motive drove officials to act outside normal business days on a matter of national significance.
• Is there documented consent from the Guinean government for this transshipment plan? Despite claims that Guinea approved ore transit in the past, no evidence has been presented that Guinea agrees to the expanded 30 Mtpa export through Liberia, especially as it builds its own railway.
• Why is ArcelorMittal Liberia, which has invested billions and operates under a binding concession, being sidestepped in favor of an outsider? The decision to grant rail rights to Ivanhoe, which has no stake in Liberia’s economy to date, is seen as undermining a committed partner. Liberians are seeking clarification on what consultations (if any) occurred with AML, and whether Ivanhoe is effectively displacing AML’s contractual role.
• Who truly benefits from this deal, and at what cost to Liberia? Given the minimal fees Liberia stands to receive compared to the revenue from AML’s operations, there is growing suspicion that the chief beneficiaries are Ivanhoe’s shareholders and possibly foreign interests, not the Liberian people. Activists are demanding to know the exact financial terms and any side agreements, amid fears that Liberia may be giving up its strategic assets for scant returns.

Thus far, the government has offered few public answers to these questions. Information about the Ivanhoe agreement remains officially scant, heightening calls for transparency.

Legislators, too, are under pressure to scrutinize the deal when it reaches them for ratification.

According to Ivanhoe, the concession agreement – having been signed by government negotiators is now awaiting President Boakai’s final approval before being submitted to the Legislature for ratification.

This looming legislative review is shaping up to be a flashpoint. Lawmakers from both the opposition and ruling party have signaled they will not rubber-stamp the deal without examining its merits and legality.

Meanwhile, observers warn that Liberia’s international reputation is on the line. The manner in which this deal is handled could influence investor confidence far beyond the mining sector.

“By blindsiding a major investor like AML, the government sends a message that contracts in Liberia might be only as secure as the current political winds,” noted a Chamber of Commerce official, cautioning that perception alone can deter much-needed investment.

There are also diplomatic stakes: a rejection or renegotiation of the Ivanhoe deal might risk tensions with Guinea (if indeed Guinea’s interests are involved) or with partners backing the project, whereas charging ahead over public objections could unleash domestic unrest and civil society backlash.

It is a delicate balance for the government of Liberia, which is juggling promises of attracting new investment with the imperative of honoring existing agreements.

As the controversy intensifies, one thing is clear: Liberians are not willing to be mere bystanders. From radio call-in shows to social media, citizens are emphatically reminding their leaders that “Liberia is not just a transit corridor, it is our country.”

The national railway, they argue, is a sovereign asset that must foremost serve Liberia’s own development and not simply the interests of foreign companies. Calls are growing for any rail deal to include stronger protections for Liberia’s interests, or else be suspended, re-negotiated, or even scrapped outright if found inimical to the national good.

With the agreement now heading toward legislative review, the ultimate fate of the Ivanhoe rail deal remains uncertain. What is certain is that Liberians’ demand for transparency and fair dealing has been ignited.

The coming weeks will test whether Liberia’s leadership heeds those demands and affirms the principle that national assets cannot be quietly bartered away – or whether the secret Sunday deal will stand as written.

In the words of one civil society leader, “Our infrastructure must serve our people, not foreign speculators with friends in high places.”