Africa

African states are party to over a thousand investment agreements, the vast majority of which have been signed with non-African countries.

In 2006, Members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) (Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland) signed the SADC Finance and Investment Protocol that also includes the ISDS mechanism. Only two claims have been registered under these terms, both against Lesotho (but the governments in the region do not typically disclose such information). In 2016 amendments to the protocol were adopted. They eliminated ISDS provisions (only state-to-state arbitration remained) and narrowed the scope of investors’ rights.

In South Africa, shortly after settling a dispute with foreign mining companies over its new post-apartheid mining rules (Piero Foresti & Others case), the government began to withdraw from bilateral investment treaties (BIT) that include ISDS, arguing they belonged to a bygone era. It claimed BITs focus on the interests of investors from developed countries and do not address concerns of developing countries.

The South African government decided to develop a new model BIT and strengthen its domestic legislation in regard to the protection offered to foreign investors, such as compatibility of BIT-type protection with South African law. South Africa also sought to incorporate legitimate exceptions to investor protection where warranted by public interest considerations.

Provisions of South Africa’s new model BIT have been incorporated into SADC’s. This model sets out provisions that mitigate the risks of earlier treaties and leaves open the option for state-to-state dispute settlement in addition to investor-state dispute settlement procedures.

In 2014, voices from the Namibian government cast doubts on the correlation between foreign direct investment and investment treaties including ISDS. They argued that ISDS represented a risk for developing countries, due to important legal fees and awards which can pose a significant budgetary threat. Further, statistics show most claimants come from developed countries.

About 11% of all arbitration disputes have involved African states.

In 2013, an arbitration court ordered Libya to pay US$935 million in a dispute over a land-leasing contract for a tourism project, making it one of the largest known awards to date.

Egypt has been the fifth most targeted state worldwide with 34 registered ISDS cases against it. Tanzania has been the most targeted country in sub-Sahara Africa with six disputes, all of which were initiated by European investors.

Photo: Hansueli Krapf / CC BY-SA 3.0

(April 2020)

SSRN | 7-Mar-2024
Using the 2015 arbitral award in von Pezold v. Zimbabwe as its starting point, this piece reflects on the relationship between racial capitalism and international law.
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment | 23-Feb-2024
Mozambique faces a substantial economic risk due to its exposure to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims by foreign investors in its coal, oil, and gas sectors. The investment protections in the country’s international investment agreements and contracts, combined with ISDS, expose Mozambique to multi-billion-dollar financial liabilities.
Global Trade Review | 21-Feb-2024
The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system could be putting climate action at risk in emerging and developing economies as investors in fossil fuel projects angle for compensation, experts say.
Stockhead | 12-Feb-2024
Indiana Resources is closer to recovering its historical sunk investment for the unlawful expropriation of the Ntaka Hill nickel sulphide project after the ICSID struck out most of Tanzania’s grounds for requesting the annulment of the award.
Investegate | 31-Jan-2024
AAG have confirmed they have submitted the claim by way of a request for arbitration to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.
Zimeye | 27-Jan-2024
A London court has ordered Zimbabwe to pay US$125 million to two timber firms whose land was seized by the government, rejecting its claim of state immunity in a case that tests the enforcement of international arbitration awards.
APA News | 26-Jan-2024
La justice britannique a demandé au Zimbabwe de se conformer à une décision de 2015 exigeant le paiement de 125 millions de dollars à deux entreprises pour des terres saisies lors de la réforme foncière controversée du pays au début des années 2000.
CDR | 10-Jan-2024
A wrangle over a shareholding in a Tunisian bank which dates back to the 1980s has finally been resolved in arbitration.
African Manager | 3-Jan-2024
Le ministre tunisien des Domaines de l’Etat et des affaires foncières a révélé que les frais d’arbitrage et de contentieux dans le dossier de la Banque franco-tunisienne s’élèvent à environ 13 millions de dinars (4 millions d’euros).
Webmanagercenter | 3-Jan-2024
Selon la décision d’arbitrage rendue le 22 décembre 2023, l’État tunisien doit verser une indemnité de 1 106 573 dinars tunisiens, alors que les demandes du plaignant s’élevaient à près de 37 milliards de dinars tunisiens (11 milliards d’euros).