A formal communication addressed to Liberia’s top legislative and executive leaders has raised serious national interest concerns over the proposed Third Amendment to the ArcelorMittal Mineral Development Agreement (MDA), warning that its current form could undermine Liberia’s economic sovereignty and long-term development prospects.
The concerns were outlined in a detailed submission to Speaker of the House of Representatives Richard Nagbe Koon, Vice President Jeremiah Kpan Koung, Sr., and Senate Pro Tempore Youngblee Karngar Lawrence. Drawing on international mining agreements, including South Africa’s 2014 iron ore supply deal involving ArcelorMittal and regulatory frameworks in Canada, the author argued that the proposed amendment falls short of global best practices in modern mineral development.
According to the submission, advanced mining jurisdictions structure agreements around strong supply-chain laws, environmental safeguards, and national development priorities—standards the author says Liberia risks neglecting if the amendment is ratified without substantial revisions.
Warnings Against Repeating Historical Mistakes
The letter cautions lawmakers to reflect deeply on past concession agreements, citing the 99-year Firestone contract and the 25-year APM Terminals concession as examples of deals that promised development but resulted in long-term disadvantages for Liberia. It warns that approving the proposed amendment without critical scrutiny could repeat those historical errors.
Among the major concerns raised is the proposed extension of the ArcelorMittal concession to 2050, with an option for renewal. The author argues that such a long-term commitment weakens national control, limits the flexibility of future governments, and prioritizes corporate certainty over Liberia’s right to reform and protect its interests.
Fiscal, Infrastructure, and Community Concerns
The submission questions the value of a proposed US$200 million upfront payment, noting that it is not linked to iron ore prices, production volumes, or the long-term value of rail and port infrastructure. It warns that Liberia may be trading strategic assets for short-term fiscal relief.
The annual mining license fee of US$500,000 is also described as grossly inadequate when compared to the scale of iron ore exports and infrastructure control involved. Similarly, continued private control of the Yekepa–Buchanan rail corridor until 2030 is criticized as entrenching monopoly power over a critical national asset.
Community benefits proposed under the amendment are also deemed insufficient. An allocation of US$5 million per year for three heavily affected counties is said to fall far short of compensating for environmental damage, social disruption, and infrastructure strain. International practice, the letter notes, links community benefits directly to production levels and revenues, rather than fixed contributions.
Governance, Employment, and Environmental Risks
Other concerns include weak penalties for non-compliance, which the author argues are insignificant to a multinational corporation of ArcelorMittal’s size and therefore fail to enforce accountability. Slow and weakly enforced Liberian employment and localization targets are also criticized, with calls for faster, measurable, and enforceable skills transfer and leadership development.
The absence of windfall tax or fair profit-sharing mechanisms is highlighted as a major imbalance, leaving Liberia unable to benefit when global iron ore prices surge. Additionally, the letter warns of weak environmental safeguards, citing the lack of fully funded mine closure and land restoration guarantees, which could leave Liberia facing long-term environmental damage after mining operations cease.
The author further criticizes investor-focused dispute resolution and stabilization clauses that could restrict Liberia’s ability to reform labor, environmental, and public-interest laws, arguing that modern agreements should protect investors without undermining national sovereignty.
Calls for Legislative Action
To address these concerns, the submission outlines a series of recommended actions, including suspending ratification until full public disclosure of the amendment is completed, commissioning independent fiscal, legal, and technical reviews, and inserting mandatory mid-term review and renegotiation clauses.
Additional recommendations include establishing independent rail regulation, introducing windfall taxes and profit-sharing mechanisms, strengthening community development obligations, accelerating Liberian employment targets, requiring fully funded environmental and mine-closure bonds, limiting stabilization clauses, and prohibiting automatic renewal of the agreement without explicit legislative approval.
The communication concludes by urging lawmakers to seize what it describes as a defining opportunity to break from Liberia’s past approach to natural resource agreements by insisting on transparency, fair value, strong protections, and policies that place national interest above short-term gains.
“This is not a call to reject foreign investment,” the letter emphasizes, “but a call to end weak negotiations and ensure Liberia’s resources truly benefit its people—today and for generations to come
