Tanzania: Unconscionable Terms in Agreements with the Government by Amalia Lui*

The Government of Tanzania is now ‘serious’ in ensuring that the natural resources benefit all Tanzanians. You have undoubtedly heard about the new legislations which have shocked most investors. The legislations are the Natural Wealth and Resources (Permanent Sovereignty) Act, 2017 (the Permanent Sovereignty Act) and the Natural Wealth and Resources Contracts (Review and Re-Negotiation of Unconscionable Terms) Act, 2017 (the Unconscionable Terms Act). Continue reading

IPCO v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation – Another African Legal Saga with International Implications, by Solomon Ebere, Esq.*

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (the “Supreme Court”) has recently handed down a landmark decision in the protracted legal saga between Nigeria’s national oil corporation and one of its foreign contractors. This decision not only provides welcome guidance on the relationship between the New York Convention (the “NYC”) and English law that is of much significance to parties seeking to enforce, or resist enforcement of awards in the U.K, it also carries global significance.

Continue reading

Getma v Republic of Guinea: an African Legal Saga with International Implications, by Solomon Ebere, Esq.*

The protracted African legal saga Getma v Republic of Guinea has drawn much discussion and speculation in the arbitration community recently. For good reasons. This saga has highlighted various aspects of international arbitration, including party autonomy, remuneration of the arbitral tribunal and enforcement of annulled awards, that go way beyond the borders of the African continent. Continue reading

The China Africa Joint Arbitration Centre: A Natural Step to Sustain the Exponential Growth of Sino African business and trade, by Saadia Bhatty, Esq. MCIArb.*

China is Africa’s largest trading partner today. Significantly, in 2016, China invested more than USD 14 billion in Africa. Its capital investment into Africa up to July 2016 notably increased by 515% from full year 2015 figures. In addition, the number of investment projects into Africa from China has also been exponentially growing, with 36 projects recorded from January to July 2016 alone. Continue reading

2017: The Year of Foreign Investment Revival for Egypt? by Saadia Bhatty, Esq. MCIArb.*

Egypt is among the top 10 signatories of Bilateral Investment Treaties (“BITs”) worldwide, with a total number of over 100 BITs. It is also ranked second, after Angola, in the list of top African countries with foreign direct investment (“FDI”) growth with an increase of 49.3% of FDI inflow going from $4.6 billion in 2014 to $6.9 in 2015 (UNCTAD World Investment Report (2016)). This growth of FDI has been driven mainly by the expansion of foreign affiliates in, inter alia, the financial, pharmaceutical, energy, construction and transport industry. But despite this positive development, Egypt lost 19 places in the 2016 Doing Business report published by the World Bank ranking it 131th out of 189 countries and FDI inflows in Egypt remain well below the $11.4 billion reached in 2009. Continue reading

Mediation use in ISDS by Fatma Khalifa*

Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has been largely dominated by arbitration as a means of dispute settlement. The problems encountered by parties in ISDS cases and the concerns voiced by multiple stake holders call for attempting new mechanisms, such as mediation, for settling Investor State Disputes (ISD). Mediation in ISDS is rather a new combination of terms. In this paper I will first identify mediation (1), compare it to other dispute settlement mechanisms (2), identify the players in the mediation process and the consent of the Parties (3), briefly explain the mediation process (4), and finally conclude by shedding some remarks on the current status and proposals for a way forward. Continue reading

South Africa’s Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill: A Brief Outline, by Muhammad Mustaqeem De Gama*

Introduction

The Cabinet decision of 20 July 2010 specified that an inter-ministerial work group should commence work on an investment protection act for South Africa. Such an act would incorporate, codify and interpret core international law concepts and clarify the level of protection that investors may expect in South Africa. On 1 November 2013 the draft Bill on the Promotion and Protection of Investment [NOTICE 1087 OF 2013 in Government Gazette (GG) No. 36995] (hereinafter “the Bill”) was published for public comment. The notice provided for a three month public comment period. This period came to an end on 31 January 2014. The Department of Trade and Industry is currently assessing the public comments and will introduce the Bill to Parliament as soon as the required technical and constitutional processes have been completed. Continue reading

Africa-China Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Critique by Dr. Uche Ewelukwa Ofodile*

This Article was first published in the Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 35(1), 2013.  If you wish to make references to the article please follow the pagination in the Michigan Journal of International Law. 

Synopsis

The purpose of this Article is to draw attention to, raise questions about, and generate discussions regarding the emerging norms, legal context, and long-term development-implications of South-South foreign direct investment (“FDI”) and South-South bilateral investment treaties (“BIT”). This Article seeks to refocus the discourse about FDI and BITs on developing countries in their role as exporters of capital and in the context of the much-touted new geography of investment. Can South-South BITs play a positive role in promoting development in sub-Saharan Africa any more than the Africa-North BITs? Is China concluding development-focused BITs with countries in Africa? The Article identifies the BITs between China and countries in Africa, analyzes the main provisions and the development-dimension of these BITs, and examines the extent to which they differ from model BITs used by Western countries. Continue reading

South Africa’s approach to the implementation of its Investment Policy Framework by Mustaqeem De Gama & Rafia De Gama*

  1. Background

In July 2010[1], the South African Cabinet adopted a new investment policy framework which was aimed at modernising and strengthening the country’s investment regime.[2] Five core measures were mandated by Cabinet for the implementation of the new policy framework: (i) development of foreign investment legislation;[3] (ii) review and termination of existing old generation BITs; (iii) development of a new model BIT; (iv) BITs will only be entered into on the basis of compelling economic and political reasons; and (v) the establishment of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) to oversee the implementation of these measures. Continue reading

South Africa’s Foreign Investment Regulation: A revisit, by Azwimpheleli Langalanga*

History of South Africa’s BIT regime

South Africa emerged from international isolation in 1994 after ushering in a majority governance system. It was the last country in the African continent to gain freedom. Most countries which had gained independence during the decolonisation period had engaged in economic nationalism. In Southern Africa, Zambia was one of them. South Africa as the last African country to attain political freedom had to signal to the world and foreign investors in particular that it was a safe investment destination.[1] Continue reading

The OHADA Celebrates its 20th Anniversary, by Antonio Delgado

On 17 October 2013, the Organisation pour l’Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires (Organisation for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa) or OHADA celebrated its 20th anniversary under the presidency of Burkina Faso. A series of events have been organised to commemorate the event, including a meeting of business law experts in Ouagadougou to discuss the achievements and the future prospects of the organisation.[1] Continue reading

South Africa denounces BIT with Spain, by José Ángel Rueda

On 23 June 2013 South Africa sent a notification to Spain in order to denounce their BIT.[1]

The BIT was signed ad referendum in Pretoria on 30 September 1998 and entered into force on 23 December 1999.[2] According to Article XII(1) the BIT was in force for an initial period of 10 years (until 23 December 2009) and from then onwards it was in force for consecutive 2-year periods (the first one, from 24 December 2009 until 23 December 2011; the second one, from 24 December 2011 until 23 December 2013; and so on).

Article XII(2) allows any State party to denounce the BIT by a notification in writing six months before the date of expiry of the BIT. As the second 2-year period referred to above lasts until 23 December 2013, South Africa had until 23 June 2013 to send its notification. It did so on time.

In any event, as usual in BIT practice, Article XII(3) contains a survival clause whereby the BIT will be in force for an additional 10-year period from 23 December 2013 for all investments made or acquired before that date.

We understand this move by South Africa is related to a hot debate about BITs within that country.[3] We will be happy to receive comments from South Africa on this topic.[4]


[1] See http://www.comercio.es/acuerdos, footnote 7 (in Spanish).

[2] See BOE (Spanish official gazette) no. 26, 31 January 2000.

[3] See “Bilateral Investment Treaty Policy Framework Review”, Executive Summary of Government Position Paper, Pretoria, June 2009, Government Gazette, 7 July 2009.

[4] See a previous post by Azwimphelele Langalanga, “South African Courts and the Expropriation Conundrum: Caveat Foreign Investor”, 31 May 2013, at http://blogaila.com/2013/05/31/south-african-courts-and-the-expropriation-conundrum-caveat-foreign-investor-by-azwimphelele-langalanga/

South African Courts and the Expropriation Conundrum: Caveat Foreign Investor, by Azwimphelele Langalanga

Summary

A milestone decision was passed down by South Africa’s premier court seated in Braamfontein, Johannesburg. This was in the case of Agri South Africa v. Minister for Minerals and Energy.[1] It is a case testing the legality of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) 28 of 2002 (as amended), particularly its black empowerment provisions. Simply put this piece of legislation had the effect of vesting all mineral ownership to the state. Before it came into being, mineral resources underground were owned by the land owners who in most instances happened to be farmers.[2] These farmers had inter alia the right to exploit the minerals and to lease such mining rights to anyone on their terms. The claimants challenged it on the basis that it expropriated their property. The court ruled that there is a difference between expropriation and deprivation. And basically provided that the concept of indirect expropriation did not apply in South African law.

Continue reading

Signature of Canada-Nigeria FIPA, by José Ángel Rueda

Here in Europe we are longing for the publication by the European Union of the list of pre-2009 BITs that its 27 Member States want to maintain in force or permit to enter into force with third States pursuant to Articles 2 and 4(2) of Regulation 1219/2012.[1] This list will clarify the status of some 1,200 BITs entered into by EU Member States between 1959 and 2009 – undoubtedly a major event for international investment law.[2]  Continue reading