ZAMBIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Christopher Kapambe, Kasewe Banda, Nakasamba Banda Chanda and Chamwaza Chioneni Phiri, AMW & Company Legal Practitioners
• the Energy Regulation Act No 12 of 2019 estab - lished the Energy Regulation Board, which approves power purchase agreements and tariffs; and • the PPP Act No 18 of 2023, operationalised by regulations in November 2024, created the PPP Office, PPP Council and Technical Committee. These developments operate alongside LIAC, which completed its first full operational year in 2025. The question is whether its urgent relief, expedited pro - ceedings, joinder, consolidation and award scrutiny can address multi-party, multi-contract disputes aris - ing from mining and infrastructure expansion. Its Jus Mundi partnership can also make non-confidential awards internationally accessible. This represents substantial development within a rela - tively short period. As it has occurred sector by sec - tor, through different statutes, ministries and regula - tory institutions, the next opportunity is to coordinate these developments within a more unified national dispute-resolution framework. Arbitration is no longer always a choice Mining illustrates arbitration’s changing character in Zambia. Disputes extend beyond licences and extrac - tion rights to land access, compensation, environ - mental obligations, joint ventures, taxation, finance, offtake, guarantees, power and changes in law. Often involving several contracts, parties and jurisdictions, they must be assessed across the investment struc - ture rather than only the mining legislation. Public procurement is the compulsory case. Section 101 of the Public Procurement Act provides that any dispute over a decision made under that Act shall be determined by arbitration. An aggrieved bidder has ten working days from the Authority’s decision in which to refer the matter. The courts have confirmed the mandate is real. In Wongani Investments Limited v ZPPA , the High Court held that judicial review cannot be used where the statute expressly provides for arbitration as the route. The court treated a statutory requirement with the same force as a clause the parties had negotiated, extending the logic of earlier authorities such as Leon -
ard Ridge Safaris Limited v Zambia Wildlife Authority and Audrey Nyambe v Total Zambia Limited . Mining exemplifies a facilitative approach. Sections 35, 39 and 40 of the Minerals Regulation Commission Act establish arbitration as a mechanism for resolving disputes over mining rights to land. The Commission may: • refer disputes involving unreasonably withheld con - sent to enter protected land to arbitration; • decide qualifying cases itself; • invite parties to arbitrate; and • broaden the range of arbitrable disputes. Compensation disputes with landowners and lawful occupiers disturbed by mining activity may also pro - ceed to arbitration, subject to a three-year limitation period. This approach is practical: the Mining Appeals Tri - bunal handles licensing disputes, while arbitration resolves issues of access and compensation. Sec - tion 40 serves rural landowners, often unrepresented, whose claims may be worth less than the cost of a tribunal hearing. Success will depend on affordable procedure and arbitrators experienced in land valu - ation. The capacity question extends beyond land valuation. Mining, energy, construction and PPP cases need arbitrators able to manage expert-heavy disputes involving finance, engineering, valuation and public law. LIAC and professional bodies should deepen local and regional panels through sector-specific training, mentoring and smaller-case appointments. Credibility depends on both the rules and those applying them. This cumulative shift requires clear recognition for its significant scope. Across several sectors that will deliver Zambia’s 2031 mining ambition, arbitration is increasingly prescribed, facilitated or adopted as the commercial default through legislation and market practice. That changes where the system’s legitimacy comes from. Where consent no longer explains why a party is in arbitration, the process must justify itself entirely on whether it is fair, affordable and enforce - able.
1206 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook