THE AUTHORS:<\/strong> On 23 March 2026, Reed Smith Paris<\/a> and Africarb held a conference entitled \u201cIntra-Africa Investments: Managing Risk and Resolving Disputes<\/em>.\u201d The panel, introduced by Mr Cl\u00e9ment Fouchard<\/a> (Partner at Reed Smith) and Mr Orph\u00e9e Haddad<\/a> (Head of Disputes at AfricArb), and moderated by Ms Aur\u00e9lie Lopez (Counsel at Reed Smith), included Ms Mariam Diawara (Executive Secretary of the Sanctions Appeals Board at the African Development Bank Group), Mr Matthew Fisher<\/a> (General Counsel at La Mancha Resource Capital), Ms Anne-Claire Gremeaux (Group General Counsel at Axian Group), Mr Mamadou Konat\u00e9<\/a> (Attorney Arbitrator and Former Minister of Justice of Mali), Mr Karim M\u2019Ziani<\/a> (Legal Counsel at the PCA<\/a> and Registrar of the Mauritius International Arbitration Centre<\/a>), and Ms Lucy Winnington-Ingram<\/a> (Partner at Reed Smith). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In his opening statement, Mr Fouchard highlighted that investor profiles in Africa are shifting. While historically investment in Africa was framed almost exclusively from the outside, African investors are increasingly investing across the continent. Mr Fouchard emphasized four questions surrounding this trend: criteria driving African investors, risk management, investment financing and legal frameworks governing intra-Africa investments. Mr Haddad then introduced AfricArb and its mission to unite African-focused arbitration practitioners through an open and inclusive platform. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel first analyzed how African investors identify opportunities on the continent. Ms Gremeaux explained the Axian group\u2019s strategy, notably to mitigate risks. First, the investment must create long-term value by improving access to essential services and developing durable projects in the region. Second, in acquisition scenarios, the group must carefully review the investment\u2019s history and derisk it, notably through liability warranties. Third, the group ensures compliance with anticorruption and ESG expectations. Other decisive criteria include currency convertibility, access to local bank financing and capital stakes, and operational control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel then examined key risks associated with investment in Africa. Mr Fisher cautioned against viewing Africa as a monolith. Investors who succeed in one African jurisdiction may wrongly assume that the same strategy will work elsewhere on the continent. Ms Diawara added that investors should be mindful of differing legal frameworks within Africa. While regional economic communities and continental treaties have established common rules in theory, harmonization remains unrealized in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding risk management strategies, Mr Fisher emphasized that strong management teams with local knowledge on the ground are the most important layer of risk mitigation. When an investment is minority owned, the company can protect itself through board seats and contractual rights. By contrast, in wholly owned investments, the investor can build legal protections into the structuring itself, including tax and treaty planning. Ms Winnington-Ingram agreed, observing that contractual and treaty protections should function as a safety net, that is ideally never solicited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel then turned to investment structuring and legal protections. Ms Winnington-Ingram explained that investors should engage in treaty mapping to identify a jurisdiction of incorporation offering appropriate treaty and domestic law protections. She added that contractual protections remain especially important in intra-African investments, though their effectiveness depends on leverage and, crucially, on whether the entity signing on behalf of the state holds binding authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Turning to the PCA\u2019s diplomatic role in reinforcing investments in Africa, Mr M\u2019Ziani underscored the benefits for states of becoming contracting parties to such conventional instruments: by engaging with international dispute resolution institutions and treaty frameworks, states signal credibility, interact with peer states, and participate in shaping the future of international investment law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion next addressed sanction mechanisms at the financing institutions\u2019 level. Ms Diawara explained that multilateral development banks have adopted a common understanding of sanctionable practices, including corruption, collusion, coercion, fraud, and obstruction. Where allegations are substantiated following investigation, companies may face debarment. She also emphasized the reputational effect of publishing sanctions decisions and shared that companies seeking reinstatement must go through integrity compliance programs involving anti-corruption training.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Next, the panel considered whether African investors occupy a different position from non-African investors. Mr Konat\u00e9 noted that in disputes involving African states, political context is often key. One possible response, he suggested, is to diversify capital structures and rely more heavily on African financial institutions, whose involvement may mitigate political risk. Mr Fisher agreed, adding that African investors often better understand local relationships and rules. Unlike foreign investors, African investors are often better equipped to know where formal protections are needed and where flexibility is possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After examining investment strategy and investors\u2019 protection, the panel turned to dispute resolution. Mr Konat\u00e9 first described the situations typically giving rise to disputes. He reiterated that the principal source is politics, including abrupt changes in legal frameworks, regime changes, and increasingly, sovereigntist rhetoric used to justify revisiting long-term investment agreements despite contractual stability clauses. In practice, this may result in tax increases, customs obstruction, or criminal proceedings against management, begetting disputes. Ms Diawara then explained the role of multilateral development bank in protecting affected communities, notably through the Independent Recourse Mechanism (IRM) at the African Development Bank Group. The affected communities seek compensation to be put in a better situation than the one they were in before the project. This frequently generates disputes, as civil society actors increasingly mobilize affected populations by invoking bank standards. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel then addressed the use of arbitration for resolving intra-Africa disputes. Ms Gremeaux affirmed that arbitration remains the preferred mechanism for all the usual reasons, including the unpredictability of local courts and the length of domestic proceedings, although she observed that in practice, many disputes settle before arbitration unfolds. Mr Konat\u00e9 noted that arbitration clauses are often not seriously negotiated at the time of contract formation, since the focus remains on closing the deal. He added that the frequent turnover of state interlocutors makes disputes especially difficult to arbitrate. Mr M\u2019Ziani agreed that arbitration in Africa presents practical challenges, but noted that states are becoming more sophisticated in their approach to dispute resolution by incorporating multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses. He further mentioned that tribunals increasingly provide \u201cnegotiation windows\u201d during proceedings to encourage settlement. Ms Winnington-Ingram suggested that the emerging African investment protocol on the ISDS side, which provides for the termination of existing intra-African BITs, including sunset clauses, and replaces traditional protections with narrower, more balanced standards, may reshape the field. <\/p>\n\n\n\n During the Q&A, a participant from Tunisia noted that Tunisian law has, since 2016, opened arbitration to both Tunisian and foreign investors and made mediation a mandatory prior step. Another participant asked about resource nationalism, to which Mr Fisher and Ms Winnington-Ingram responded that it is likely to remain a real risk, especially in extractive sectors. On the usefulness of mediation and ADR, Mr Konat\u00e9 expressed concern that these mechanisms are often treated merely as formal preconditions to arbitration rather than as genuine settlement tools. He suggested that a more meaningful preliminary discussion phase might facilitate genuine resolution. Ms Lopez responded that where a business relationship is particularly valuable, less adversarial forms of dispute resolution \u2013 such as mediation \u2013 might be preferred. Mr M\u2019Ziani noted that many PCA cases resolve at the ADR stage. Next, when asked whether the cooling-off period can be used more creatively, Ms Winnington-Ingram explained that an investor\u2019s leverage with its host state significantly influences the productivity of negotiations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This article was originally published in PBA Bulletin on 17 April 2026, as part of a special edition curated by Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a>, in collaboration with Jus Mundi <\/a>and Jus Connect<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Emmanuelle Busigni\u00e8s<\/strong>, International Arbitration Intern at Proskauer Rose<\/strong><\/a>
Abigail Goldman,<\/strong> Master’s Candidate in Droit \u00e9conomique at Sciences Po Paris<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
As part of Paris Arbitration Week 2026, Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a><\/strong>, in collaboration with Daily Jus<\/a><\/strong> and Jus Mundi<\/a><\/strong>, brings together contributions in a special edition of PBA Bulletin<\/a>,<\/strong> sharing reflections and perspectives from across this year\u2019s events.<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n