Lawmakers Fail To Confront Guinea Rail Reality At Ivanhoe House Hearing

Monrovia-November 20, 2025: In 2019 Liberia and Guinea entered into an Implementation Agreement meant to serve as a template for cross-border coordination — one that guaranteed any Guinean mining company seeking to use Liberia’s railway and port would do so under a transparent, jointly supervised process.

Yet the proposed Concession and Access Agreement between Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG) has now raised uncomfortable questions about whether the procedures laid out in that agreement were genuinely followed.

The Senate has already demanded proof of Guinea’s approval before the Ivanhoe deal proceeds to debate. In the House, Representative Alex Noah of Sinoe County called for a formal inquiry into how Guinea views Liberia’s intention to allow Ivanhoe to transport Guinean ore through Liberian territory.

Hopes were high that Tuesday’s hearing at the House of Representatives would finally bring clarity. Instead, the session ended with more doubts than answers. The Committee on Lands, Mines, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment skirted the central concern: Guinea’s decision to build its own multi-billion-dollar Trans-Guinea Railway, a development that threatens Liberia’s long-held ambition to be a regional transit corridor for Guinean ore.

Attempts by Representatives Dorwin Gleekia and Marcus Thomas to raise compliance questions under the 2019 Implementation Agreement were shut down by the presiding chair, who insisted such issues were “outside the scope” of the hearing.

But these very issues go to the core of the agreement. Article 5 mandates a two-step approval process: Guinea vets a Request for Eligibility, and Liberia reviews a Request for Access jointly with both countries’ Monitoring Committee, before final approval by the Inter-Ministerial Committee. Article 9 establishes joint oversight mechanisms, while Article 7 requires a standard Access Agreement template prepared by the Technical Secretariat. None of this procedural groundwork has been made public in the context of the Ivanhoe deal.

The Committee’s refusal to engage with these realities underscores a growing weakness in Liberia’s legislative oversight. As Guinea advances its independent rail and port system, Liberia faces a shrinking window to redefine its geopolitical and economic relevance. Yet Tuesday’s hearing showed no readiness within the Legislature to confront these shifts or defend the country’s long-term interests.

In the end, the unanswered question still hangs over Capitol Hill: if lawmakers cannot interrogate an issue of such vast consequence, who will protect Liberia’s economic future?

the proposed Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) between Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG), and major questions now hang over whether the procedures laid out in that bilateral Agreement were ever respected.

With these developments gaining national attention, expectations were high as key ministries and agencies appeared before the House of Representatives on Tuesday to clarify how the CAA aligns with Guinea’s approval under the bilateral framework. But the session quickly fell short.

The House Committee on Lands, Mines, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment faced public criticism after failing to address intensifying concerns over Guinea’s decision to push ahead with its own multi-billion-dollar Trans-Guinea Railway — a development many Liberians fear could permanently undermine the country’s longstanding ambition to serve as a regional mining transit hub.

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.

Tuesday’s hearing was expected to be the moment Liberia confronted the shifting regional landscape. For years, Liberia positioned itself as the natural evacuation route for Guinean ore, especially for companies like Ivanhoe that have aggressively sought access to the Yekepa-Buchanan railway. But with Guinea constructing its own domestic railway and port, the question of whether Liberia still fits into Guinea’s long-term logistical strategy remains unanswered.

The proposed Concession and Access Agreement (CAA) between Liberia and Ivanhoe Liberia (HPX/SMFG), and major questions now hang over whether the procedures laid out in that bilateral Agreement were ever respected.

With these developments gaining national attention, expectations were high as key ministries and agencies appeared before the House of Representatives on Tuesday to clarify how the CAA aligns with Guinea’s approval under the bilateral framework. But the session quickly fell short.

The House Committee on Lands, Mines, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment faced public criticism after failing to address intensifying concerns over Guinea’s decision to push ahead with its own multi-billion-dollar Trans-Guinea Railway — a development many Liberians fear could permanently undermine the country’s longstanding ambition to serve as a regional mining transit hub.

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.

Tuesday’s hearing was expected to be the moment Liberia confronted the shifting regional landscape. For years, Liberia positioned itself as the natural evacuation route for Guinean ore, especially for companies like Ivanhoe that have aggressively sought access to the Yekepa-Buchanan railway. But with Guinea constructing its own domestic railway and port, the question of whether Liberia still fits into Guinea’s long-term logistical strategy remains unanswered.

Instead of confronting these wider geopolitical realities, Committee members concentrated on peripheral issues and avoided discussions that would have clarified Guinea’s new commercial posture, the changing regional transport map, or the potential economic risks Liberia faces if it continues relying on outdated assumptions about cross-border ore transport.

Our reporter, who witnessed the hearing, noted that lawmakers failed to ask why Guinea after investing billions in its own infrastructure would still depend on Liberia’s rail corridor. Nor did they probe whether Guinea would even permit cross-border ore transport once its new infrastructure becomes fully operational.

This failure reflects a deeper challenge within Liberia’s legislative oversight: an unwillingness to confront external commercial decisions that directly affect national revenue, long-term infrastructure planning and the country’s strategic relevance in the sub-region.

As Guinea speeds ahead with rail and port construction, Liberia is left with a narrowing window to redefine its role in West Africa’s mineral economy. Yet Tuesday’s hearing offered no indication that lawmakers are ready to confront this reality or articulate a coherent national position.

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?