THE AUTHOR:
Chioma Menankiti, LL.M. Candidate at Harvard Law School & Vice President (Events) of Harvard International Arbitration Law Students Association (“HIALSA”)
African jurisdictions are increasingly asserting their place within the evolving arbitral landscape. This trend is reflected not only in the institutional and legislative developments across the continent, but also in the growing number of disputes involving African parties. Indeed, in 2025, Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for the largest regional share of ICSID cases commenced globally. During this period, the continent witnessed key updates to arbitral frameworks and institutions, as well as legislative reforms discussed in this piece.
Reinforced Institutional Capacity
To begin with, several initiatives were undertaken to strengthen the presence and efficiency of arbitral institutions across the continent. These developments signal an intention among African states to reduce barriers to procedural efficiency and flexibility, while fostering arbitration-friendly environments for commercial actors.
One notable example is the launch of the Malawi International Arbitration Centre, following the state’s ratification of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 2021 and the subsequent adoption of the International Arbitration Act in 2024. The Centre seeks to improve institutional access to efficient dispute resolution for commercial and investment disputes, further positioning Malawi as an emerging regional venue for arbitration.
These objectives were similarly reflected in procedural rules adopted by arbitration institutions across the continent. For example, the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (“AFSA”) adopted its Domestic Arbitration Expedited Rules, which entered into force in August 2025. The Rules, which apply to arbitrations administered by AFSA and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Association of South Africa, require arbitrators to render awards within 30 days following the close of proceedings, subject only to extensions authorized by the AFSA Secretariat. Likewise, the Centre for International Mediators and Arbitrators (“CIMA”) published the Accra International Arbitration and Mediation Rules in December 2025. The Rules, which took effect in January 2026, align with international standards by promoting party autonomy, procedural efficiency and the enforceability of awards rendered.
Another key development in this regard was the draft Award Review Proceedings Rules published for comments last year by the Lagos Chamber of Commerce International Arbitration Centre (“LACIAC“). The draft Rules operationalize the innovative award review mechanism envisaged under Section 56 of Nigeria’s Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023. Section 56 permits dissatisfied parties to apply for the review of an arbitral award by an Award Review Tribunal, composed of the same number of arbitrators as the original tribunal. The draft Rules establish the procedural framework governing this mechanism, including a three-month time limit within which parties may seek review by filing a notice with the LACIAC Secretariat, which is responsible for appointing the award review tribunal.
Beyond legislative and procedural reforms, arbitral institutions across the continent also introduced administrative and technological developments aimed at improving the efficient conduct of arbitral proceedings. In this regard, the Kigali International Arbitration Centre’s implementation of an electronic case management system to facilitate the digital administration of arbitration disputes by allowing parties to file and access arbitration case documents online, and to track and follow up on the progress of ongoing cases. This development forms part of broader efforts by arbitral institutions to strengthen their capacity to administer complex disputes.
The Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (“CRCICA”) demonstrates this momentum. In 2025, the Centre recorded its highest number of cases filed in a single year, with 97 cases involving parties from 27 nationalities, including the first case filed under the Centre’s Expedited Rules. These filings brought the total cases registered before the CRCICA to 1,844. Collectively, these developments illustrate the enhanced capacity of African arbitral institutions to administer disputes effectively across multiple sectors.
Evolving Legislative Frameworks
Alongside institutional developments, African jurisdictions enacted legislative reforms aimed at modernizing their arbitration frameworks and expanding the role that arbitration plays across specialized sectors.
In May 2025, the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (“NCIA”) published the Kenya Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025, a concrete step in updating the country’s arbitration laws, with the current Arbitration Act dating to 1995. Three decades later, the new Bill strengthens Kenya’s profile as a regional arbitration hub by aligning arbitration in Kenya with global standards, including the UNCITRAL Model Law. Key provisions of the Bill include:
- The introduction of emergency arbitrators – Article 2 of the Bill, which defines key terms, expands the definition of “arbitral tribunal” to include emergency arbitrators and recognizes awards by such arbitrators.
- The recognition of electronic procedures – The Bill expressly contemplates the use of electronic communication to examine witnesses, thereby reducing the need for their physical presence during arbitration hearings. This aligns Kenya’s arbitration law with the increasing practice of remote hearings following the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The provision of “fast track arbitration” – Part IVA of the Bill allows parties, before or at the time of appointment of the arbitral tribunal, to refer a domestic arbitration for an expedited procedure. Under a fast-track procedure, the tribunal may decide the dispute solely on the basis of written submissions, without any oral evidence, and must render an award within six months of its appointment.
- The introduction of third-party funding provisions – The new Bill formally recognizes third-party funding in arbitration proceedings and requires funded parties to disclose the identity of the funder and the terms of the funding agreement.
The Bill also notably transfers functions such as judicial review and resolving arbitrator appointments, previously reserved for the High Court, to the NCIA and its Arbitral Court thereby minimizing delays and ensuring increased procedural efficiency.
Key legislative reforms on arbitration-related matters were observed elsewhere on the continent. In Egypt, Law No. 171 of 2025 established the Egyptian Sports Settlement and Arbitration Centre as an independent and specialised forum for arbitrating sports disputes. Therefore, parties may now provide in arbitration agreements for a dispute to be referred to the Centre, whose decisions are final and binding save for limited review by national courts in the context of annulment proceedings. The country also passed a new labour law which allows parties to resolve collective labour disputes through arbitration. This development represents a significant expansion in the scope of arbitrable disputes in the country, thus emphasizing the importance of party autonomy and signalling trust in arbitration as a suitable mechanism for adjudicating labour matters.
Regulatory Developments and a New Wave of Investor-State Claims
Another notable trend that emerged in 2025 is the increase in the number of investor-State arbitration claims filed against African states. According to ICSID’s Caseload Statistics, a total of 17 such cases were filed against African states, a substantial increase compared to the 10 cases recorded in 2024. Several of these disputes arose from measures adopted in the mining and extractives sectors. One such example is the now-settled Mines de Loulo and Mines de Gounkoto v. Mali, arising in part from revisions in Mali’s new mining code aimed at increasing state revenue, ownership and control in mining projects.
These disputes are accompanied by regulatory developments, including mining code reforms, licence revocations, and initiatives to increase national participation in the ownership and benefits of strategic mineral projects. For instance, the Senate of the Republic of Congo also recently approved a draft for a new Mining Code to replace the 2005 Code currently in force, to strengthen the governance of the nation’s mining sector. The new Code emphasizes production-sharing, local content, and skill transfer. Likewise, in August 2025, the Somali legislature passed a long-awaited Mining Bill to replace the 1984 Mining Code. The new legislation codifies obligations regarding environmental management, local content and other conditions for operating in the State’s mining sector. These developments follow similar legislative reforms adopted in Burkina Faso in 2024 and Mali in 2023. Together, they reflect a broader trend across African states towards increased state participation, control and revenue generation in mining projects, alongside more stringent local content requirements, thereby supporting the wave of “fiscal” and “industrial nationalism” shaping extractive-sector governance on the continent.
Conclusion
The foregoing developments illustrate the significant progress African jurisdictions continue to make in strengthening their arbitration-related infrastructure and institutional capacity. As the evolving legal and policy landscape across key sectors highlights the growing importance of arbitration for resolving commercial and investment disputes, the initiatives discussed are particularly timely and demonstrate Africa’s continued commitment to building a sophisticated arbitral ecosystem.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Chioma Menankiti is an LL.M. Candidate at Harvard Law School. Prior to her LL.M., she obtained her Masters in Economic Law from Sciences Po Paris and has gained experience working in the international arbitration departments of law firms in France and the United Kingdom. Chioma is also passionate about investment policy and ISDS reform, and has interned with UNCITRAL, UNCTAD and the OECD on these issues. She is also a student ambassador for the American Branch of the International Law Association and assisted in organizing the International Law Weekend 2025 in New York.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
