In a speech on 5 February 2008 at the Mining Indaba in Cape Town, the Vice Minister of Mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Victor Kasongo, made a commitment to instituting a “brief and open administrative appeal process” for the mining contract review before “a specially constituted panel” [1]. This would allow each company whose contract has been reviewed to put its case for ‘reclassification’ and to minimise confrontation and delay. According to the Vice Minister, the delay in the review process was the result not of ill-will, but of the sheer scale of the problem that had caught the government by surprise [2].

The NGO coalition welcomes the Congolese government’s commitment to proceed with the review of mining contracts and to do so in an ‘open’ manner, given the mining sector’s potential to improve sustainable and equitable development in the DRC - a country ravaged by a brutal war for more than ten years.

“However, civil society groups are concerned that so far, the government has only provided the haziest outline of the process that is being put in place,” said the coalition of NGOs. “This adds more confusion to a process that is already mired in controversy and suspicion.”

The NGOs described the ‘fast track’ appeals panel as an attempt to protect the DRC government from the threat of costly and lengthy litigation and international arbitration procedures. “Until the DRC Government stands by its promise to publish the Ministerial Commission’s final report and specifies how the appeals process will operate and the powers that it will have, there can be no confidence or trust in this ‘solution’”, said the coalition.

The NGO coalition is calling on the DRC government to urgently clarify the following questions:

 Has the government accepted the findings and recommendations of the Commission and is it prepared to implement them fully, including the cancellation of those contracts classified in category C (“to be revoked”)?

 What will be the composition of the appeals panel and how will its members be selected? What will its terms of reference and operating procedures be? Will the panel make the final determination on the future of these contracts?

 Will the panel include Congolese and international experts? If so, will they be nominated by the government or selected by an international bidding process?

 What measures are foreseen to guarantee the transparency and accountability of the panel’s work? Will civil society groups be able to submit comments on specific contracts and will the panel take these into consideration?

 What role is envisaged for the Congolese Parliament?

 Will the renegotiations be limited to the mining contracts already reviewed by the Commission? If so, does the government intend to take action in relation to other highly disadvantageous contracts, including commercial contracts which the Commission did not examine because of a lack of expertise?

Without addressing these concerns, an adequate renegotiation process cannot take place, say the NGOs. “The government’s preference for a fast track procedure gives rise to fears that they want to rush through the renegotiation, in order to reassure mining companies and improve the investment climate,” says the coalition. “In the absence of strong safeguards, transparency and accountability will be the first casualties of Congo’s ‘fast track’ process.”