Sovereignty, Diplomatic Credibility at Risk -Pundits say of Liberia-Guinea implementation Agreement

MONROVIA – The recent Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) between Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG) has raised questions about its compliance with the Liberia-Guinea Implementation Agreement signed in October 2019. The Implementation Agreement was designed to ensure transparent and equitable access to Liberian infrastructure for Guinean mining operators. Independent Experts have been taking a keen look at the Agreement. The Analyst reports.

The Implementation Agreement established a two-step approval process for access deals, which appears not to have been followed in the case of the CAA. There is no public record of the required committees, including the Monitoring Committee and Inter-Ministerial Committee, reviewing and approving the agreement.

The CAA ignores the harmonization requirements of the Implementation Agreement, setting its own access fees, tax regime, and operational framework without regard for Guinean law or bilateral oversight. This may breach the uniform pricing principle envisioned by the agreement.

The CAA is a bespoke document granting Ivanhoe unique privileges, rather than being based on a standardized template as required by the Implementation Agreement. This raises questions about Liberia’s negotiation process and potential breach of Article 3.3, which prohibits unilateral action that restricts or prevents the full effect of the agreement.

The Liberian government may have compromised its sovereignty and diplomatic credibility by ignoring the Implementation Agreement’s oversight process. The CAA’s compliance with the agreement is uncertain, and its ratification could set a dangerous precedent.

Liberia should pause, review, and align the CAA with the Implementation Agreement to preserve legality and defend its national interest and cross-border partnerships.

When Liberia and Guinea signed the Implementation Agreement in October 2019, it was hailed as a model of cross-border cooperation — a carefully constructed legal framework designed to ensure that any mining company seeking access to Liberian infrastructure would do so transparently, equitably, and in full harmony with both governments’ national interests.

Fast forward to the recent Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) between Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG), and questions now loom large over whether the spirit and procedures of that bilateral Implementation Agreement were ever followed.

The Implementation Agreement wasn’t a ceremonial document — it was the rulebook.
It set out, in explicit terms, how any request from a Guinean mining operator to use Liberia’s rail and port facilities should be handled:

Article 5 required a two-step approval process — a Request for Eligibility vetted by Guinea, and a Request for Access submitted to Liberia, reviewed by both governments’ Monitoring Committee, and finally endorsed by the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC).

Article 9 established these committees to prevent unilateral action and guarantee that both sides had a say in every cross-border infrastructure decision and Article 7 tasked a Technical Secretariat to prepare a standard Access Agreement template, ensuring consistency and fairness across all users.

Yet, when the CAA emerged, there was no public record of these institutional steps ever being followed. No Evidence the Required Committees Ever Approved the CAA

Under the Implementation Agreement, no Access Agreement could legally exist unless the Monitoring Committee reviewed it and the Inter-Ministerial Committee approved it.

So, was the CAA reviewed by either body? No minutes of IMC deliberations have been released. No report from the Monitoring Committee exists in the public domain. There is no evidence that Guinea’s government formally declared HPX’s project an “Approved Infrastructure Project” under Article 5.1.

Instead, the CAA appears to have been negotiated bilaterally between Liberia and HPX — a process that sidesteps the very institutions the Implementation Agreement created to ensure transparency and mutual oversight. The CAA Ignores the Harmonization Requirements of the IA

One of the cornerstones of the Implementation Agreement is harmonization — aligning both countries’ laws, customs procedures, and fee structures to ensure smooth, fair operations.

Article 4.1 of the IA commits both governments to non-discriminatory treatment and equal access for Guinean operators. Article 8.2–8.3 obliges Liberia and Guinea to harmonize regulations and develop common access pricing and safety standards.

Yet the CAA was drafted as a standalone commercial deal, with its own fee schedule, tax regime, and operational framework — none of which are harmonized with Guinean law or subject to bilateral oversight.

By setting its own access fees, Liberia may have breached the uniform pricing principle the IA envisioned, creating a precedent where each government negotiates privately rather than cooperatively.

The IA Required a Standardized Template — the CAA Is Bespoke

Under Article 9.3 of the Implementation Agreement, the Technical Secretariat was to develop a model Access Agreement before any individual contract was signed.

That model was meant to protect the interests of both states — standardizing clauses on customs, liability, environmental safeguards, and dispute resolution.

But the CAA is not based on any standardized template.

It’s a bespoke, investor-driven document granting Ivanhoe unique privileges — including capacity rights up to 30 million tonnes per annum, long-term tenure (25 + 15 years), and broad compensation clauses — far beyond what any “template” would have allowed.

This raises the question: Was Liberia negotiating as a sovereign, or as a party to a bilateral system that it unilaterally ignored?

Possible Breach of Article 3.3 – Unilateral Action Prohibited. The Implementation Agreement was explicit: “Neither Party shall sign any contract or undertake any action that directly or indirectly restricts or prevents the full effect of this Agreement.”

By granting Ivanhoe/HPX broad access and long-term guarantees without Guinea’s formal concurrence, Liberia may have violated Article 3.3, effectively undermining the bilateral framework that both nations had ratified.

Instead of reinforcing cooperation, the CAA risks fracturing it — creating a scenario where Guinea could argue that Liberia has unilaterally altered the cross-border logistics regime.

The People’s Interest — Overshadowed by Procedure Shortcuts

Procedural compliance isn’t bureaucracy — it’s how Liberia protects its sovereignty.

By ignoring the IA’s oversight process, Liberia has effectively: removed the checks that ensure deals reflect the true value of national assets; diminished Guinea’s confidence in a shared corridor framework; and risked exposing itself to disputes, duplication, and compensation claims down the line.

The CAA may promise transit fees and community funds, but if it was born outside the legal process agreed between the two states, it jeopardizes Liberia’s diplomatic credibility and could even render the agreement voidable under international law.

The Bottom Line

The Liberia–Guinea Implementation Agreement was meant to guarantee that no access deal would be negotiated in isolation.

But the CAA appears to have been crafted in isolation — without the mandatory bilateral reviews, without harmonized pricing or procedural approval, and without respect for the governance bodies the IA established.

If ratified in its current form, the CAA may not only violate the Implementation Agreement, it could set a dangerous precedent that Liberia’s sovereign commitments are optional — a message no serious investor or international partner wants to hear.

In short, the CAA may be a commercial deal, but it’s not a compliant one.

Liberia should pause, review, and align this agreement with the Implementation framework — not just to preserve legality, but to defend its long-term national interest and the integrity of its cross-border partnerships.