New details are raising further questions about the legality and structure of the Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) between the Government of Liberia (GOL) and Ivanhoe Liberia, as analysts point to provisions that appear to fall outside the requirements of the 2019 Liberia–Guinea Implementation Agreement. The latest concerns center on the absence of a standardized model contract and the possibility that Liberia may have acted unilaterally in violation of binding bilateral rules.
Under Article 9.3 of the Implementation Agreement, the two countries established a Technical Secretariat responsible for developing a model Access Agreement that would serve as the baseline for all future contracts. The intent of the template was to protect the interests of both governments by standardizing clauses on customs procedures, environmental safeguards, liability, and dispute resolution. By relying on a unified template, both states would ensure that no mining operator received terms that conflicted with the jointly approved framework.
However, the CAA signed with Ivanhoe is not based on any known standardized template. Instead, it appears to be a highly tailored contract shaped largely around investor priorities. The agreement grants Ivanhoe Liberia long-term infrastructure rights, including access capacity reportedly reaching up to 30 million tonnes per year and tenure spanning 25 years with an additional 15-year extension. It also includes broad compensation and guarantee provisions that observers say would not likely align with the more balanced terms envisioned under a standard template.
The absence of the mandated model agreement raises the broader question of whether Liberia was negotiating within the bilateral system it helped establish—or whether it acted independently of the structures the Implementation Agreement put in place. Legal experts caution that if the standardized template was never finalized or applied, any contract signed outside of that framework risks being inconsistent with the obligations both countries agreed to follow.
Beyond the issue of the template, analysts are now examining whether the CAA may constitute a breach of Article 3.3 of the Implementation Agreement, which explicitly prohibits either country from signing any contract that restricts, undermines, or prevents the full effect of the bilateral framework. The provision was intended to prevent unilateral actions and ensure that decisions affecting cross-border infrastructure were made jointly and transparently.
By granting Ivanhoe extensive rights and long-term guarantees without any publicly known confirmation of Guinea’s involvement or approval, Liberia may have acted contrary to Article 3.3. If the agreement commits Liberia to terms that Guinea did not endorse, observers warn it could weaken the cooperative foundation of the 2019 framework. Such a scenario could prompt Guinea to argue that the cross-border logistics system has been altered unilaterally, potentially disrupting future negotiations or collaborative projects.
Neither government has provided public clarification on whether the standard template exists or whether Guinea formally concurred with the terms granted to Ivanhoe Liberia. As questions continue to surface, regional analysts say the lack of transparency threatens to complicate bilateral relations and may invite broader scrutiny of how cross-border mineral transport agreements are being structured.
With the CAA increasingly under public examination, attention is now turning to whether the two governments will move to clarify the process or defend the agreement against allegations that it bypassed the very rules designed to govern such deals.
