Monrovia, Liberia – The Implementation Agreement, a legal framework designed to guarantee that any Guinean mining company seeking access to Liberian rail and port infrastructure would do so transparently, fairly, and with the express consent of both governments, was signed by Guinea and Liberia in October 2019 as a model of cross-border cooperation.
There are now serious concerns about whether the processes outlined in the proposed Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) between Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG) were ever followed. Before discussing the Ivanhoe agreement, the Liberian Senate has already required “documentary evidence” demonstrating Guinea’s permission. Additionally, Sinoe County Representative Alex Noah wrote to the House plenary asking for an inquiry into Guinea’s perception of Liberia’s intention to reach an agreement permitting Ivanhoe to transport Guinean ore across Liberian territory.
Expectations were high as important ministries and agencies appeared before the House of Representatives on Tuesday to explain how the CAA complies with Guinea’s permission under the bilateral framework, as these events were receiving national attention. However, the session quickly fell short.
The House Committee on Lands, Mines, Energy, Natural Resources, and Environment came under fire from the public for failing to address growing worries about Guinea’s decision to move forward with its own multibillion-dollar Trans-Guinea Railway, which many Liberians believe could permanently jeopardize the nation’s long-standing goal of acting as a hub for regional mining transportation.
It was generally anticipated that lawmakers would question the implications of Guinea’s new rail line, which will connect the new deep-water port at Moribayah in Forécariah with the ore-rich Beyla region. However, the Committee neglected to address important national issues in spite of repeated cautions from Liberian technocrats, civil society organizations, and economic analysts.
Representative Foday Fahnbulleh, Chair of the House Committee on Investment and Concessions, dismissed Representative Dorwin Gleekia of Nimba District 6’s attempt to discuss how the Ivanhoe agreement is consistent with the Liberia-Guinea Implementation Agreement as being outside the “scope of the hearing.”
Representative Marcus Thomas also pushed to understand the operational status of SMFG, Ivanhoe’s Guinean subsidiary, even showing images on his phone to illustrate the evolving situation in Guinea. His inquiry was immediately blocked by the presiding chair. However, the problems they tried to bring up are fundamental to the bilateral agreement that both nations signed.
Under Article 5 of the Implementation Agreement, any Guinean mining company seeking to use Liberia’s rail or port must undergo a two-stage approval process:
a Request for Eligibility vetted by Guinea, and a Request for Access submitted to Liberia and jointly reviewed by the Monitoring Committee, with final approval granted only by the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC).
Article 9 formally established these committees to prevent unilateral decisions and ensure both governments participate in every cross-border infrastructure decision. Article 7 mandated a Technical Secretariat to prepare a standard Access Agreement template, guaranteeing fairness and consistency for all users.
Additionally, the Implementation Agreement currently allows only 5 million tons of Guinean ore per year through Liberia far below Ivanhoe’s ambition to transport 15–20 million tons annually, raising further concerns about compliance.
It was anticipated that Liberia would face the changing regional environment at the hearing on Tuesday. Liberia has long positioned itself as the ideal escape route for Guinean ore, particularly for businesses like Ivanhoe that have actively pursued access to the Yekepa-Buchanan railway. However, the question of whether Liberia still fits into Guinea’s long-term logistical strategy is still open because Guinea is building its own internal railway and port.
Committee members avoided discussions that would have clarified Guinea’s new commercial posture, the evolving regional transportation map, or the possible economic risks Liberia faces if it continues to rely on antiquated assumptions about cross-border ore transport in favor of focusing on peripheral issues rather than addressing these broader geopolitical realities.
Lawmakers neglected to inquire as to why Guinea would continue to rely on Liberia’s rail corridor after investing billions in its own infrastructure, according to our correspondent who attended the session. Additionally, they did not investigate whether Guinea would allow the transportation of ore across borders once its new infrastructure is fully functioning.
This failure is symbolic of a more serious problem with Liberia’s parliamentary oversight: a reluctance to dispute foreign commercial decisions that have a direct impact on long-term infrastructure development, national revenue, and the nation’s strategic importance in the subregion.
Liberia has a limited amount of time to rethink its place in the resource economy of West Africa while Guinea moves forward with building ports and railroads. However, there was no sign during Tuesday’s hearing that politicians are prepared to face this fact or present a cohesive national stance.
In the corridors of the Capitol, a silent but pressing question remains: if the Legislature cannot interrogate a matter of this consequential, who will safeguard Liberia’s economic future?
Photo credit: HOR
