Africa’s Iron Ore, Taxpayers’ Arbitration Bill, by Fransiscus Nanga Roka

A border can be crossed by an iron ore deposit. Just just as geological A legal feature cannot be told in one story. The brutal message of the Mbalam-Nabeba dispute is that governments cannot lawfully assert mineral sovereignty, and investors cannot merely buy contractual protection by payment–they must be earned through performance.

Sundance Resources, an Australian miner and its subsidiaries Cam Iron and Congo Iron launched separate International Chamber of Commerce arbitrations against Cameroon and the Republic of Congo in respect of their interests in a mining project straddling both countries. The developments were very different, though.

On January 27, 2026 Sundance said the tribunal had rejected all its claims against Congo. The tribunal proved valid grounds for Congo Iron being stripped of its exploitation licence because the project had been deferred in 2016-2018, according to the company’s statement. Sundance filed to challenge the award under Section 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 in London’s Commercial Court, claiming serious procedural irregularities. Those allegations are the company’s position, rather than facts settled by a court.

Sundance announced on July 26 that it had won against Cameroon: $616 million in damages, interest and costs This is, however, a compensation (not criminal fine). The tribunal said Cameroon violated both substantive obligations and the arbitration agreement when it did not follow an emergency order issued in March 2022 that barred it from issuing the Mbalam permit to a third party, according its statement.

These results puncture two easy political narratives.

Investors should never assume that because an exploration spending this year gets them to maintain mineral rights (and even pay for it), the bill is not due yet. If the government is to be able to withhold concessions from those unwilling or unable to fulfil lawful development obligations, it needs robustly and credibly enforceable methods. Otherwise industry will simply use agreements as a means of warehousing national resources.

Likewise, sovereignty does not provide a justification for ignoring binding obligations. Any new obligations also need to establish whether rights and procedures for disputes exist in relation to the replacement developer. Political impatience is not a replacement for legal strategy.

This difference in treatment, standing alone, does not constitute arbitral inconsistency. Different tribunals determined different state duties and behaviour. It would be going beyond the public evidence on these awards to make sweeping conclusions about their reasoning without them.

However, the public-interest issue is a clear one. When a state commences large compensation payments, citizens suffer the economic effects of decisions that they may never have questioned. Who authorized the disputed conduct? What legal advice was received? Did the government consider financial risks before taking action?

There is an obligation on the part of Cameroon to commission an independent review of the chain of decision-making, produce a public summary where legality allows and hold officials accountable when evidence permits. Parliament should be able to through its usual means scrutinise any payment or negotiated settlement and to have the fiscal consequences published.

The two countries must announce milestones for concessions, funding needed, how termination would be handled and the criteria for a replacement award. Verification of non-performance should separate an investor from the delay and this could be related to government/ shared infrastructure matters.

Cross-border projects of the future will require coordinated infrastructure commitments, compatible dispute clauses and processes to deal with disputes that impact on both jurisdictions. Without it, projects thrown together commercially can fragment into separate legal skirmishes.

Enforcement and challenge risks should be reported by Sundance squarely. Its Cameroon statement concedes that enforcement proceedings may follow if payment is not voluntary. A prize is not money in the bank.

But, most importantly, communities need enforceable environmental protection during consultation and for all the changes in concessions.

Development must be funded by Africa’s minerals wealth When governments don’t honor contracts and investors breach delivery promises, arbitration is the costly bookkeeping for everybody’s shortfalls—and citizens pay.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia