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)

The East African | 20-Jul-2023
The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes has ordered Tanzania to pay more than $109 million to a group of companies fronted by Australian miner Indiana Resources Ltd in compensation for the controversial 2018 expropriation of a nickel mine project in Tanzania.
The Citizen | 11-Jul-2023
Air Tanzania Company Limited (ATCL) plane that was seized in the Netherlands after a Swedish firm won a $165 million award against Tanzania has been released, says the government.
Lexology | 21-Jun-2023
State parties consider whether to turn to traditional methods of investment dispute settlement mechanisms or more innovative solutions, such as an African investment court.
Euro.es | 16-Jun-2023
In the last week, four African countries have received investment arbitration claims before the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Cameroon, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Tunisia have been sued by investors from Italy, the Republic of Korea, Australia, Singapore and the United Kingdom.
BNN | 12-Jun-2023
Zenith Energy Ltd, an international energy firm, filed a lawsuit against Tunisia on Wednesday, claiming financial damages of at least $48 million.
Le Journal de l’Afrique | 9-Jun-2023
Réclamant 48 millions de dollars à la Tunisie, la société canadienne de pétrole Zenith Energy a lancé une procédure internationale d’arbitrage.
The Zimbabwe Mail | 2-Jun-2023
ZIMBABWE continues its fight in the United States (US) to block enforcement of a US$277 million arbitration award to a German and Swiss family which stems from the country’s controversial land reform programme.
IISD | 2-Jun-2023
Le protocole sur l’investissement de l’Accord portant création de la Zone de libre-échange continentale africaine a été adopté par les chefs d’État africains les 18 et 19 février 2023.
Le Desk | 23-May-2023
27,4 milliards de dirhams (près de 2,8 milliards de dollars). C’est le montant précis, que nous révélions précédemment et réclamé par le Suédois Corral au Maroc, dans le cadre du litige devant le tribunal arbitrait du CIRDI.
Algérie360 | 17-May-2023
L’Algérie est condamnée à verser à l’EIIC la somme de 228 millions de dollars, en plus des dommages et intérêts et du paiement des frais d’arbitrage.