ArcelorMittal Liberia (‘AML’ or ‘the Company’) says it has learned through unconfirmed media reports that the House of Representatives has made appointments to the conference committee and some other decisions over the past few days regarding the company’s Third Amendment to the Mineral Development Agreement (MDA), which is awaiting ratification by the Legislature.
“The company believes that this Amendment to the MDA is in the best interest of Liberia and its people, as signed on September 10, 2021 after more than 12 months of negotiations with the Government of Liberia (GOL),” AML said in a press release.
“AML remains committed to Liberia with its long-term investments that will deliver a project which will bring unrivalled and extensive economic and social benefits to the country for decades to come.
“For now, AML is awaiting all facts related to the actions by the Legislature before making any further statement on this matter.”
Interpreting the AML statement, a legal luminary told the Hot Pepper that ArcelorMittal is, in effect, questioning the legitimacy of the action of the Lower House of the Legislature and, in fact, still considers the bill as before the National Legislature.
“Remember that the President submitted the bill to the Legislature…both houses. So, the Legislature, being a bicameral body, acted separately on the bill, the Senate acted, and the House also acted.
“The Senate sent an official communication to the House about the result of their action done in chambers, and the House took an action on the Senate’s recommendation for the constitution of a conference committee. The conference committee did not meet in a single house. A single segment of the Legislature decided on its own and took an action to return the bill to the President,” the Constitutional lawyer stated.
“Recall what happened in the Biochico bill. The House took the Senate to court and the Supreme Court ruled that, in fact, a concession is not a finance bill and therefore can originate from either of the Houses. So, the argument is whether the action of the House is legitimate, or whether the House is acting at the behest of its funders and hidden hands.
“It may be a matter of technicality, but AML may be preparing to go to court or preparing to pull out,” the legal luminary continued.
