In Ivanhoe’s Concession, People’s Interest Overshadowed by Procedure Shortcuts

Monrovia-November 20, 2025: The Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) signed between the Government of Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG) is drawing heightened scrutiny as policy analysts and legal experts point to procedural gaps that may have sidelined public interest and weakened the safeguards established under the 2019 Liberia–Guinea Implementation Agreement.

The Implementation Agreement was crafted to ensure that all cross-border infrastructure decisions involving Liberia’s strategic rail and port assets were subjected to a rigorous approval process involving both Liberia and Guinea.

It required every proposed access deal to pass through the Monitoring Committee for joint review and then receive final endorsement from Liberia’s Inter-Ministerial Committee. Those steps were designed to guarantee transparency, protect national assets, and prevent unilateral decisions affecting shared regional infrastructure.

However, there is no public evidence that the committees mandated under the agreement reviewed or approved the Ivanhoe deal. Analysts note that the absence of official minutes, reports, or communiqués suggests that the CAA may have been negotiated outside the structures the two states committed to follow.

Without these oversight measures, experts argue, Liberia risks entering into long-term infrastructure commitments without the checks that ensure such agreements reflect the country’s strategic and economic interests.

The potential procedural shortcuts also carry implications beyond Liberia’s borders. Guinea has relied on the Implementation Agreement as a framework guaranteeing that all cross-border transport arrangements would be jointly managed. By moving forward without visible bilateral vetting, Liberia may have weakened Conakry’s confidence in the shared corridor model, raising the risk of disputes, duplication of infrastructure, or future claims for compensation.

Supporters of the CAA have pointed to the anticipated benefits—such as transit fees and community contributions—as evidence of positive economic prospects. But governance specialists warn that any projected gains could be overshadowed if the agreement is later deemed non-compliant with the legally binding framework between the two countries. Under international law, contracts concluded outside required state-to-state processes may be challenged, renegotiated, or rendered voidable.

More broadly, analysts say the Ivanhoe deal highlights the danger of negotiating major infrastructure agreements in isolation. The Implementation Agreement was explicit that no access deal should be crafted separately from the bilateral system it established. Yet the CAA appears to have been developed without harmonized pricing, without coordinated regulatory review, and without the oversight of the institutions the agreement created.

If adopted without corrective action, the CAA could set a precedent suggesting that Liberia’s treaty-level commitments are optional—an interpretation that could unsettle investors, development partners, and future regional collaborators who depend on predictable rules and transparent processes.

As public debate widens, experts are urging the Liberian government to reassess the agreement, align it with the Implementation framework, and reinforce the principles of joint oversight and accountability. They argue that doing so is essential not only to uphold legal obligations but also to protect Liberia’s long-term national interest and maintain trust within its cross-border partnerships.