E&P ICC Arbitration: When a Tribunal Chair’s Speech Becomes the Story
When Engineers & Planners (E&P) filed its arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in 2024 to enforce its rights over Ghana’s Black Volta and Sankofa gold projects, few expected the proceedings themselves to become as controversial as the mining deal at their heart. But by September 2025, the arbitration had become entangled in disputes not only about evidence and procedure but also about credibility, of counsel, of the tribunal, and of the respondents themselves.
A withdrawal notice shrouded in denial
In early September, Bright Simons reported that E&P had filed a notice to withdraw its claims. The revelation was widely picked up by media outlets, including acknowledgements from the respondents’ side in public commentary. Yet, despite the near completion of the negotiations, the Respondents side is still actively pushing for the proceedings to continue, incurring unnecessary costs and poisoning the atmosphere for the conclusion of the negotiated settlement. To observers, this looked like a blatant misrepresentation. The contradiction has cast a long shadow, prompting questions about whether the integrity of the proceedings is being maintained.
The keynote that blurred the lines
Compounding these concerns was a development outside the hearing room. On 4 September, Madam Adekoya delivered the keynote address at the KBE Memorial Lecture hosted by Bentsi-Enchill, Letsa & Ankomah—the Ghanaian law firm serving as co-counsel for the respondents.
Her remarks, widely reported by local media, urged Ghanaian firms to build arbitration experience by partnering as co-counsel with “established international firms.” On its own, this was a defensible call for capacity-building. But in the context of the E&P case, where the respondents are represented by an international firm working alongside a Ghanaian one, while E&P has retained a domestic firm alone, the comments struck many as inadvertently endorsing one side’s model over the other.
For a tribunal chair to speak at an event hosted by counsel in an ongoing case, and to make remarks that can be read as validating the respondents’ legal strategy, inevitably raised the optics problem. Even if no bias exists, the appearance of bias has become unavoidable.
Tax shadows over the respondents
Beyond the arbitration chamber, the credibility of the respondents is also under pressure from Ghana’s own fiscal authorities. According to NorvanReports’ review of documents, the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) has been chasing IGIC, Cangol, and Azumah Pty for unpaid capital gains taxes linked to their acquisitions in Azumah Ghana Ltd.
Azumah Ghana, incorporated in 2005, saw foreign interests acquire stakes in 2014 and 2020 through opaque cross-border arrangements involving Australia and Singapore. A 2023 audit by the GRA concluded that at least $12 million was due from these transactions. Enforcement proceedings are now underway.
The overlap is striking: the same entities now contesting E&P in international arbitration are simultaneously accused of structuring their corporate dealings to avoid taxes in Ghana. For critics, it underscores a pattern of evasiveness, not only before arbitrators but also before regulators.
Integrity at stake
The convergence of these episodes paints a troubling picture. Respondents continuous pursuit of the arbitration despite the settlement discussions, the tribunal chair’s public appearances with respondents’ counsel, and the GRA’s enforcement action collectively erode confidence in the neutrality and transparency of the process.
International arbitration rests on twin pillars: impartial adjudication and the perception of fairness. Both are fragile. Once parties suspect bias or evasiveness, the legitimacy of outcomes suffers, and enforcement of awards becomes vulnerable to challenge.
ICC’s credibility test
In total, the stakes go beyond E&P. The ICC has the reputation for providing an even field and to assure parties that disputes will be fairly resolved. Yet doubts over impartiality in such a high-profile case, combined with evidence that the respondents are simultaneously evading Ghana’s tax net, cut against that ambition.
NorvanReports has previously chronicled how mining lease reforms, stability agreements, and investor-state disputes shape perceptions of Ghana’s investment climate. The E&P arbitration now adds a cautionary tale: if the very mechanisms designed to resolve disputes are themselves clouded by integrity questions, investor confidence will falter further.
The path forward
The options are clear but difficult. We hope that the Parties are able to settle and the issues surrounding the conflicts of the panel, dishonesty of some of the Counsel in the matter are resolved amicably. The tribunal, for its part, could restore confidence by issuing disclosures, clarifying what it knew, when it knew it, and why. Madam Adekoya might also consider explaining the circumstances of her keynote appearance.
Meanwhile, the GRA’s pursuit of unpaid taxes will continue in parallel, ensuring the Respondents remain under pressure in Ghana’s domestic courts as well as abroad. If successful, the enforcement action would strengthen the state’s hand and further damage the credibility of the foreign consortium.
More than one audience
At its core, the E&P dispute is no longer only about mining rights. It is about credibility: of counsel, of arbitrators, and of Ghana’s institutions. Arbitration may be conducted in private, but its legitimacy is public. Every denial, every speech, every enforcement action shapes how the process is perceived.
Perhaps the tribunal and parties have acted fully within the rules. But in arbitration, as in governance, the rules are not the only measure. Optics matter, too. And right now, the optics of the E&P case suggest a system under strain, struggling to convince the very audiences whose trust it depends upon.
