The 2024–2025 arbitration surge
West Africa has become the epicentre of African investment treaty arbitration. Military regimes in Guinea, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have revoked or renegotiated mining licences, generating ICSID claims valued in the billions.
The Axis International v Guinea claim - valued at $28.9 billion - exceeds Guinea's annual GDP. Expert witnesses provide country conditions, regulatory framework, and Guinean law evidence essential to fair and equitable treatment and expropriation analysis.
BIT framework and governing law
Most West African mining disputes arise under bilateral investment treaties between African states and investor home states (France, UK, US, China, and others). Experts must understand the applicable BIT standards - fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, and expropriation - and how African domestic law interacts with treaty obligations.
OHADA may govern certain commercial aspects while BITs govern investor-state obligations. African law experts clarify this interaction.
Expert evidence required
Typical expert team: country conditions expert (regulatory change, political risk, expropriation context); African law expert (governing law, licence validity, court procedures); mining sector expert (technical and operational context); and quantum expert.
Early instruction during memorial preparation ensures experts can address the specific factual matrix and treaty standards in dispute.
Swipe horizontally to view full table
| State | Sector | Context for expert evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Guinea | Bauxite | Axis International claim (~$28.9bn); licence revocations under military junta |
| Mali | Gold | Military regime mining contract renegotiations |
| Burkina Faso | Gold | Multiple investor-state claims following policy shifts |
| Niger | Uranium / mining | Post-coup regulatory changes |