Monrovia, Liberia – Recent media reports alleging litigation and falsely implicating ArcelorMittal Liberia (AML) in politics represent a continuation of a sustained propaganda campaign sponsored by vested interests, particularly High-Power Exploration (HPX) and the Solway Mining Group.
These baseless allegations, surfacing at this critical moment, are strategically designed to undermine AML’s longstanding commitment to Liberia’s development. They aim to distract attention from the opportunistic motives of rival entities vying for control over the nation’s vital rail and port infrastructure.
This campaign comes at a time when the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) project Liberia’s economy to grow by 5-6%, largely driven by the mining sector. Media narratives targeting AML, widely seen as a key driver of this growth, have intensified in recent months.
This latest round of misinformation appears calculated to disrupt ongoing government efforts to finalize AML’s Phase 2 expansion deal, which promises to deliver 3,000 new jobs, boost government revenue, and expand funding for social development projects—critical interventions that could greatly improve Liberia’s economy.
Liberians must recognize that HPX and its collaborators have no investments in Liberia. If they were to once again succeed, as they did in 2021, in derailing the AML deal, they would not only deny 3,000 Liberians employment but also severely hinder the government’s ability to generate essential revenue for building roads and delivering basic social services to the population.
Industry analysts estimate that the AML expansion plan could generate over $200 million in total revenue annually at full implementation.
AML’s Position on Multiuser Access
The suggestion that AML is resisting multiuser access to Liberia’s rail and port infrastructure is patently false. Since the submission of its third amendment to the Mineral Development Agreement (MDA) in 2021, AML has consistently championed multiuser access as a cornerstone of Liberia’s development. Clause 3, Section E of the amendment explicitly stipulates:
“Subject to the rights of the CONCESSIONAIRE and as provided in this Agreement, the GOVERNMENT may, at any time during the Term and any Extended Term of this Agreement, authorize the CONCESSIONAIRE and one or more other Users to further expand the Railroad capacity for their own respective needs, subject to the subparagraphs below and by the Railroad System Operating Principles…”
This clause unequivocally demonstrates AML’s willingness to allow other users, including Guinean mining companies like HPX, access to the Yekepa-Buchanan railway. Furthermore, AML has actively invited these companies to contribute financially toward increasing the railway’s capacity, ensuring that the infrastructure meets the demands of multiple stakeholders.
Solway Mining Group’s Dubious Claims
Media reports conveniently overlook the history of Solway Mining Group’s contested claim to a portion of AML’s concession area. During former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s administration, efforts to award this area to another entity, Atlantic Resource, a South African company, were halted after AML raised legal objections. A thorough investigation confirmed that the area was rightfully part of AML’s concession, leading to the dismissal of several government officials involved in the attempted misappropriation.
Despite this precedent, the Weah administration irresponsibly awarded the same area to Solway, sparking a legal dispute that AML has consistently sought to resolve through appropriate channels. Solway’s demand for compensation is unwarranted and represents an attempt to profit from a concession area it had no legitimate claim to in the first place. AML’s offer to settle the matter with $25 million underscores its commitment to maintaining stability and fostering collaboration, even in the face of provocation.
It is no coincidence that recent media narratives align closely with the interests of HPX and Solway Mining Group. These companies stand to gain from undermining AML’s reputation and positioning themselves as primary beneficiaries of Liberia’s rail and port infrastructure. By framing AML as an obstacle to multiuser access, these entities seek to mask their reluctance to invest in infrastructure improvements—a requirement AML has consistently supported.
AML has repeatedly called on HPX and others to contribute to the expansion of the rail system to accommodate additional users. Their failure to engage meaningfully in this process speaks volumes about their priorities. Rather than collaborate in good faith, these companies have chosen to sponsor divisive propaganda, diverting attention from their own shortcomings.
The insinuation that AML’s exclusive control over the railway undermines Liberia’s economic sovereignty is deeply misleading. AML’s MDA explicitly supports the government’s right to authorize additional users, ensuring that Liberia retains full control over its critical infrastructure. The establishment of the Liberia National Railway Authority (LNRA) further guarantees that the nation’s rail and port assets will be managed transparently and equitably.
It is worth noting that AML has invested billions of dollars in Liberia’s economy, creating thousands of jobs and funding vital community projects. The company’s commitment to Liberia’s development is unmatched, and its support for multiuser access reflects a genuine desire to see the country thrive.
Recent references to the Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (LEITI) Act of 2009 highlight AML’s exemplary track record in adhering to transparency and accountability standards. The company has consistently disclosed its operations, payments, and contributions to Liberia’s development, setting a benchmark for responsible corporate governance.
In contrast, the activities of HPX and Solway have been shrouded in opacity, raising serious questions about their commitment to transparency and accountability. Their reliance on sensationalist propaganda rather than substantive engagement only underscores their lack of credibility.
By Julius T. Jaesen, II
