The recently announced Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) between the Government of Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia, a subsidiary of HPX/SMFG, is drawing growing scrutiny amid questions over whether it aligns with the procedures established in the 2019 Liberia–Guinea Implementation Agreement.
That agreement, signed in October 2019, was intended to serve as the governing framework for all future requests by Guinean mining companies seeking to use Liberia’s rail and port infrastructure.
At the time of its signing, officials from both countries described the Implementation Agreement as a model for coordinated cross-border management. It laid out a detailed system designed to ensure transparency, prevent unilateral decisions, and protect the interests of both governments when granting access to key transportation assets.
According to the document, any Guinean mining operator wishing to transport ore through Liberia must first undergo a formal eligibility review by the Government of Guinea before submitting a request for access to Liberia.
Both governments were expected to jointly review such applications through a Monitoring Committee established specifically to oversee these processes. Final approval for any access arrangement was reserved for Liberia’s Inter-Ministerial Committee, which would then endorse or reject the proposal based on the joint technical review.
The Implementation Agreement further required the Technical Secretariat to prepare a standard Access Agreement template to ensure consistency in the terms offered to all mining companies seeking to use Liberia’s infrastructure. This template was meant to function as a safeguard against preferential treatment and to guarantee fairness across all users.
However, when the Liberia–Ivanhoe CAA was made public, there was no accompanying evidence that the procedures outlined in the 2019 agreement had been followed.
There has been no public disclosure of an eligibility request vetted by Guinea, no record of a joint review by the Monitoring Committee, and no confirmation that the Inter-Ministerial Committee issued a formal approval of the deal.
There is also no available information suggesting that a standardized access template was prepared or applied in this case.
The absence of these steps has raised concerns among observers who note that the Implementation Agreement was designed precisely to prevent unilateral or opaque decisions about the use of Liberia’s rail and port facilities.
Without clarity on whether the required reviews took place, analysts warn that the CAA could undermine the credibility of the bilateral framework that both countries agreed to uphold.
Government officials have not yet responded to requests for comment on whether the mandated approval process was completed. As questions continue to mount, the central issue remains whether the new CAA fully complies with the Liberia–Guinea Implementation Agreement, or whether key safeguards were overlooked in the rush to finalize the deal.