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)

Mining Review Africa | 5-Oct-2017
New laws revolve around the notion that Tanzania’s domestic law is to be supreme over any international dispute or arbitration decision.
IISD | 4-Oct-2017
Le tribunal a estimé que la société requérante n’avait pas de siège social au Luxembourg et a fait preuve d’abus de droit pour « étayer la réalité de son siège social luxembourgeois »
IISD | 4-Oct-2017
The tribunal ruled that the investor did not have a head office in Luxembourg and had abused its rights to “give the impression that it had a Luxembourg head office”
IISD | 22-Sep-2017
Swedish investor EcoDevelopment registered a claim at the ICSID against the Tanzanian government for revoking a land title amid concerns over the impact on local communities and a wildlife sanctuary.
ALB | 15-Sep-2017
Zimbabwe is in breach of two arbitral awards totalling USD 240 million, after it missed a deadline to pay investors whose land was seized as part of the government’s racially motivated land reforms.
African Law Business | 6-Sep-2017
The Singapore High Court has set aside an investor-state arbitral award on the merits against the Kingdom of Lesotho. The case is an important one, as it concerns whether investors can use arbitration to resolve cases that were pending before the SADC Tribunal when it was dissolved by the SADC Summit in 2014.
L’Express de Madagascar | 15-Aug-2017
Les investisseurs de Madamobil viennent de déposer une plainte contre les autorités. Un centre d’arbitrage à Washington est en charge du dossier.
Kapitalis | 26-Jul-2017
Le Cirdi a rendu son verdict : l’Etat tunisien s’est rendu coupable de violation du droit de propriété d’ABCI sur la Banque franco-tunisienne (BFT)
Miningmx | 17-Jul-2017
AngloGold Ashanti joined Acacia Mining in entering into arbitration over legislative changes in Tanzania which entitles the East African country’s government to renegotiate business agreements with mining firms.
Lexology | 13-Jul-2017
A number of the provisions of the new legislation are inconsistent with the protections afforded to qualifying investors under agreements such as bilateral investment treaties.