Background to the dispute
Monrovia-The dispute between Solway Investment Group and the Government of Liberia arose from competing claims over iron ore exploration rights in the Mount Blei and Mount Detton area of Nimba County, an area within the broader territory associated with ArcelorMittal Liberia’s mining operations.
In 2019, Liberia’s Ministry of Mines and Energy granted Solway’s Liberian subsidiary, Solway Mining Incorporated (SMI), a three-year mineral exploration licence covering the area. Solway subsequently conducted exploration and said its work identified more than 1.4 billion tonnes of economically viable iron ore resources. Solway then entered negotiations with the Liberian Government for a Mineral Development Agreement that would allow it to move from exploration toward commercial development.
The dispute became complicated because ArcelorMittal maintained that the area covered by Solway’s exploration licence fell within territory protected by its existing Mineral Development Agreement with Liberia.
ArcelorMittal’s position was that Liberia had granted Solway exploration rights in an area where ArcelorMittal already had contractual rights. In June 2020, ArcelorMittal formally raised objections to Solway’s exploration activities. The dispute subsequently became a matter for the Liberian Government to resolve.
ArcelorMittal’s position was also connected to its 2005 Mineral Development Agreement, which gave the company rights over a large concession in Nimba. The company’s 2023 reporting described its concession as approximately 51,342 hectares, with existing mining rights over Mt. Tokadeh, Mt. Gangra and Mt. Yuelliton and exploration rights covering Mt. Blei and Mt. Detton.
The 2023 settlement and transfer
The dispute escalated in 2023.
In June 2023, the Government of Liberia and ArcelorMittal entered into a Deed of Settlement addressing their disagreements over third-party licences inside ArcelorMittal’s concession area. The agreement contemplated the termination of Solway’s licence and the transfer of relevant rights and assets. An investigation published in 2024 reproduced provisions of the agreement indicating that Liberia undertook to terminate Solway’s licence and other third-party iron ore rights within ArcelorMittal’s concession area.
Solway subsequently challenged the government’s actions.
According to Solway, the government had been negotiating a Mineral Development Agreement with Solway while simultaneously agreeing with ArcelorMittal to terminate Solway’s rights and transfer the area to ArcelorMittal. Solway argued that this amounted to unlawful expropriation and violated Liberia’s Investment Act of 2010 and the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce between Switzerland and Liberia.
The Liberian Government ultimately terminated Solway’s exploration licence in August 2023. ArcelorMittal received a new exploration licence covering the disputed area in September 2023. Liberia’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative records an ArcelorMittal exploration licence for iron ore beginning September 4, 2023, covering the relevant period.
Solway then moved toward international arbitration.
Which court heard the case?
The case was not heard by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
It was an investor-state international arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).
The case is:
Solway Investment Group v. Republic of Liberia
PCA Case No. 2024-22
The arbitration was conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The applicable domestic law included Liberian law, while Solway also relied on the Switzerland-Liberia investment treaty.
Solway submitted its Notice of Arbitration on November 9, 2023. In its public announcement, Solway said it sought arbitration administered by the PCA, initially requesting London as the place of arbitration.
The three-member tribunal consisted of:
- Cavinder Bull SC, Chairman
- Judith Levine
- Professor John Y. Gotanda
The tribunal issued its award on September 23, 2026.
It is therefore more accurate to describe the decision as an award by an international arbitral tribunal administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, rather than a judgment by an international court.
What issues were before the tribunal?
The central question was whether Liberia had unlawfully taken Solway’s investment when it terminated Solway’s exploration rights over Blei and Detton and transferred the area to ArcelorMittal.
There were several related legal questions.
- Did the tribunal have jurisdiction?
Liberia argued that it had not agreed to international arbitration in the circumstances and that the dispute should be dealt with through Liberian courts.
The tribunal rejected that position in relation to claims brought under Liberia’s Investment Act.
The tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear those claims.
However, it declined jurisdiction over Solway’s claims based on the investment treaty. This distinction is important because Solway had relied on both Liberian investment legislation and the Switzerland-Liberia treaty.
- Did Solway have a compensable right in the Blei and Detton licence?
This was the heart of the case.
Solway argued that its exploration licence constituted a valuable investment and that Liberia could not simply terminate it and transfer the area to another company without appropriate compensation.
Liberia’s position ultimately prevailed before the majority of the tribunal on this issue.
The majority concluded that Solway did not have a compensable right to the exploration licence itself.
That meant Solway was not entitled to the large compensation claim it had sought for the loss of the mining opportunity.
- Did Liberia unlawfully take Solway’s physical assets?
On this issue, Solway succeeded.
The tribunal’s majority found that Liberia had breached Section 7 of the Liberian Investment Act of 2010 by expropriating Solway’s physical assets.
The tribunal valued those assets at:
US$314,619.47.
Liberia was ordered to pay that amount, with interest running from August 31, 2023, at SOFR plus two percentage points, compounded quarterly, until payment.
This was substantially below Solway’s overall claim, which exceeded US$200 million.
The tribunal also ordered Liberia to reimburse Solway US$38,898.24 relating to the arbitration deposit. The parties were otherwise required to bear their own legal costs and share the tribunal’s costs equally.
How did the tribunal rule?
The September 23, 2026 award produced a mixed result, although the majority rejected the central claim over the exploration licence.
Solway’s major claim was rejected
The majority rejected Solway’s claim for compensation for the Blei and Detton exploration licence.
In practical terms, the award did not require Liberia to pay Solway compensation for the value of the iron ore opportunity itself.
It also did not order ArcelorMittal to surrender the area.
ArcelorMittal was not a party to the arbitration.
The majority’s finding that Solway did not possess compensable rights in the licence therefore left ArcelorMittal’s position over the area unaffected by the award, according to reporting based on the award.
Solway nevertheless won on physical assets
The tribunal found that Liberia had unlawfully taken Solway’s physical assets and awarded US$314,619.47 plus interest.
Thus, it would be inaccurate to say that Liberia won the entire case.
Liberia successfully defeated the principal compensation claim, but it was found liable for the physical assets.
The dissenting arbitrator
There was also an important dissent.
Professor John Y. Gotanda, one of the three arbitrators, disagreed with the majority’s treatment of Solway’s broader investment.
According to the account of the award, Gotanda relied on several government and company documents, including the June 2023 Deed of Settlement between Liberia and ArcelorMittal, the July 2023 Release and Settlement Agreement involving Solway, and an ArcelorMittal letter of September 5, 2023 acknowledging that Solway’s licence had been terminated on August 16.
Gotanda’s reasoning was that these documents demonstrated that Liberia itself had treated Solway as holding valuable rights that had to be formally terminated before the area could be transferred to ArcelorMittal.
He disagreed with the majority’s reasoning that Solway’s rights were not compensable because Solway had not been guaranteed a Mineral Development Agreement.
His view was that uncertainty about whether Solway would ultimately obtain a development agreement should affect the valuation of the investment, rather than eliminate the existence of the investment.
He therefore would have found that Liberia unlawfully took Solway’s broader investment.
What does the ruling mean for Liberia and ArcelorMittal?
The immediate result is that the government does not have to pay Solway the more than US$200 million it had claimed for the disputed mining rights.
Instead, Liberia’s liability arising from the award is principally the US$314,619.47 award for physical assets, plus the applicable interest, together with the US$38,898.24 reimbursement relating to the arbitration deposit.
For ArcelorMittal, the ruling is particularly important because the company was not ordered to relinquish the Blei and Detton area.
The arbitration therefore did not undo the government’s September 2023 grant of exploration rights to ArcelorMittal.
The decision also comes against the backdrop of Liberia’s broader long-term agreement with ArcelorMittal. In 2026, Liberia and ArcelorMittal agreed to extend the company’s mining arrangement to 2050, with an option for a further 25 years.
In simple terms
The Solway case can be reduced to four key points:
First, Solway obtained an exploration licence from Liberia in 2019 and explored the Blei and Detton area in Nimba.
Second, ArcelorMittal disputed Solway’s rights, arguing that the area fell within its existing concession rights. Liberia eventually terminated Solway’s licence and issued an exploration licence over the area to ArcelorMittal.
Third, Solway took Liberia to international arbitration before a tribunal administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under PCA Case No. 2024-22, seeking compensation exceeding US$200 million.
Fourth, the September 23, 2026 majority award rejected Solway’s central claim for compensation for the exploration licence but found that Liberia unlawfully took Solway’s physical assets and ordered payment of US$314,619.47 plus interest. One arbitrator dissented on the central investment issue.
The most important clarification: this was not an ICJ case and not a Liberian Supreme Court judgment. It was an international investor-state arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, with a three-member arbitral tribunal deciding the dispute under the applicable arbitration framework.
About The Author
