The Difficult Trade-Off in Africa’s Mining Landscape

By Lisi Enea Bodiong

Africa's mining industry grapples with the tension between resource sovereignty and investor confidence.

Axis International Ltd, a UAE-based mining firm,  launched a $28.9 billion arbitration claim against the Republic of Guinea, which is currently under review by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). 

Since 2020, Axis International Ltd has legally mined on Guinean land under a permit granting the company access to bauxite mines in the Boffa region, until it was denied access to the mines in May 2025. The mining firm claimed that the Republic of Guinea wrongfully terminated their permit; it maintains that it never received a written notice of default or any clear explanation for the cancellation. In response, the government of Guinea argued that the revocation occurred because the mine was not operational and routinely underutilised by Axis (inhibiting potential domestic returns).

Guinea’s international attractiveness stemmed from its minerals, such as bauxite. Despite its richness, Guinea suffered from a resource curse paradox; though endowed with significant raw materials, it received a minimal share of the revenue from aluminium production. Guinea’s junta-led government argued that it has the right to reform mining laws and renegotiate contracts to promote more efficient resource management and maximise national returns. It could become a key market player in the mining industry, with Bouna Sylla, the current Minister of Mines and Geology for the Republic of Guinea, citing that the country witnessed a tenfold growth in bauxite production over the past decade. As a result of this sudden recognition of the significance of mineral wealth, Guinea has terminated several domestic and international mining permits in a renewed push towards mineral nationalism. 

Why, exactly, is this a cause for concern in commercial law?

This is concerning because it goes against a core concept of business dealings: investor confidence. Commercial mining investments rely on predictable enforcement of contractual rights, particularly where projects require billions in upfront capital expenditure. It sends a deeply troubling signal to international mining investors that revocation of permits can be made without procedural safeguards, or without allowing the investor to contest the decision. States retain the right to regulate natural resources but must do so in line with international obligations and principles of legality. International investment protections exist for precisely this situation; if the legal basis that Guinea claimed to have terminated Axis’s contract under has virtually little significance, then it could amount to contractual breach, and compensation would be in order. Axis demands over US$1 billion in damages for what it calls “illegal expropriation.” But Guinea's financial retributions concerns should be secondary, as unclear procedures deter international mining investors from committing long-term. This will make future financing and joint ventures significantly harder to secure, limiting the economic recovery such reforms aimed to achieve.

However, this does raise ethical and moral questions. Should a country that is overwhelmed by mismanagement and heightened poverty be forced to remain in a constant state of overdependence on resource revenue because of legal concepts that primarily benefit the “stronger” party? The Republic of Guinea seeks to refine domestic trade and manufacturing but must do so within the limits of international law. This is but one among many cases, mining nationalism has spread across Africa. Junta-led countries, such as Mali, have also resorted to revoking and reallocating mining permits as they push for higher revenues and increased local processing. Takeovers from junta-led governments are usually an emergency resort to stabilising the economy and fighting corruption; Guinea’s push for resource nationalism is a result of trying to restore the Republic’s finances without being heavily dependent on Western powers that were previously abetting corruption or exploiting vulnerabilities. However, it must do so without undermining contractual certainty.

African countries stand at a critical crossroad, seeking to redefine their position in the global market, but having to navigate through a legal landscape that was never made for their comprehension. Until transparency, legal predictability, and procedural discipline are firmly established, Guinea’s mining boom will face limitations.

Bibliography

Guinea Mining Insights, “Axis Minerals Permit Fallout Deepens: Governance Concerns and High-Stakes Risks for Prospective Investors” (Guinea Mining Insights, November 14, 2025) <https://www.guineamininginsights.com/news-insights/axis-minerals-permit-fallout-deepens-governance-concerns-and-high-stakes-risks-prospective-investors> Accessed February 14, 2026

Jamasmie C, “Axis Sues Guinea for $29B over Bauxite Permit Revocation” (MINING.COM, December 29, 2025) <https://www.mining.com/axis-sues-guinea-for-29b-over-bauxite-permit-revocation/> Accessed January 26, 2026 

Shanghai Metal Market, “Why Is Guinea Revoking Bauxite Mining Licence or Withdrawing Concession? Is This Course Correction or Disruption Ahead?” (Shanghai Metal Market, May 19, 2025) <https://www.metal.com/en/newscontent/103332390 > Accessed January 26, 2026