Sub-Saharan Africa remains one of the most dynamic frontiers for cross-border investment and international arbitration. In 2026 and beyond, investors will continue to navigate a complex interplay of opportunity and risk shaped by resource nationalism, macroeconomic realities and changing regulatory regimes.
With major infrastructure, energy and extractive projects driving transformation across the region, the potential for high value disputes is also increasing with arbitration remaining the preferred means of resolving these disputes.
This 2026 Outlook identifies five key areas of potential disputes that businesses, investors and states must watch closely across Sub-Saharan Africa and highlights how proactive risk management and dispute management strategies can mitigate risks and liability.
1. Resource nationalism and mining disputes
Across the extractive and mining sectors, governments are asserting greater control over natural resources through legislative and policy reforms. For instance, Tanzania, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo have, through new or amended legislation, introduced measures aimed at increasing government revenue and economic control of the mining sector. While these reforms reflect legitimate sovereign efforts to secure fair value from resource extraction, they have simultaneously triggered waves of contractual instability.
In several jurisdictions, investors have faced amendments to fiscal terms, renegotiations of mining development agreements, and, in some cases, termination of licences and concessions. These measures have heightened tensions between states and foreign investors, leading to a surge in international arbitration claims.
Investors have increasingly turned to arbitration under investment treaties alleging breaches of fair and equitable treatment, expropriation without compensation, and violation of legitimate expectations.
Often, the contracts underpinning these projects contain stabilisation clauses designed to freeze the applicable legal and fiscal regime for the contract's duration or to provide recourse where new laws, regulations, or policies alter the project's economics.
Therefore, in addition to the likelihood of more investor-state claims under applicable investment treaties, there is also the potential for a surge in commercial disputes over the interpretation of stabilisation clauses, particularly as to the scope of such clauses and compensation mechanisms.
2. Oil & gas assets – acquisitions and divestments
International oil companies continue to divest onshore and shallow water assets, particularly in Nigeria and parts of West Africa, while national and regional oil & gas players expand their portfolios by acquiring these assets.
The transactions are frequently slowed or contested by regulatory approvals, community consent issues and environmental liabilities. Disputes may arise where investors challenge the regulators for such delayed approvals or challenge other causes of the delays. Disputes may also arise around decommissioning obligations, legacy claims, warranties, indemnities and post-completion price adjustments, especially considering currency volatility.
Additionally, as new joint venture partners assume ownership of divested assets, disputes are likely to emerge around cash call obligations, joint venture governance disputes and operator liabilities. These risks mirror longstanding trends in joint venture/ joint operating agreements but they are also amplified by transitions of ownership and financing constraints due to currency instability.
3. Foreign exchange (FX) liquidity and repatriation challenges
Currency instability and foreign exchange liquidity challenges remain risk factors for cross-border investors in Sub-Saharan Africa.
For investors, a shortage of foreign exchange has translated into billions of dollars in trapped revenues, delayed dividends and stalled loan payments. The inability to freely repatriate earnings is a dispute trigger between investors and states, with treaty-based claims and shareholder disputes emerging as natural consequences of these challenges.
Currency depreciation is another front burner issue. In certain sectors such as oil & gas, transactions may be denominated in US dollars, shielding investors from the direct impact of local currency depreciation. Nevertheless, the risk of currency depreciation still exists where revenues (such as those from domestic crude sales and refined crude products) are generated in local currency. Therefore, sharp currency devaluation can erode the cash flows needed to meet dollar denominated obligations, thus triggering contractual and financing disputes as a result of failure to meet financial obligations.
Currency volatility also fuels valuation disputes, as post-completion price adjustments in asset sales may be challenged when macroeconomic assumptions and exchange rates shift.
While some states have pursued reforms to curtail these challenges, foreign exchange liquidity and currency devaluation will remain major investment risk factors and a trigger for disputes, with conflicts centring on whether financial obligations should be calculated at official exchange rates, prevailing market rates or contractually benchmarked exchange rates, which may have become unsustainable.
4. Domestic Crude Supply Obligations and emerging oil & gas disputes in Nigeria
Nigeria has implemented the Domestic Crude Supply Obligations (‘DCSO’) under its Petroleum Industry Act, 2021. This measure is designed to guarantee consistent feedstock of crude to domestic refineries by crude producers in Nigeria and essentially to reduce the country's longstanding dependence on imported petroleum products.
The Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission is empowered to allocate specific crude volumes from upstream producers for domestic refining at market reflective prices, ensuring that newly operational refineries have reliable supply.
A key pressure point, however, arises from the reality that many crude producers have already sold forward portions of their future crude entitlements to international buyers or financiers, often as collateral for loans.
As such, enforcing DCSO obligations may place such producers in a legal and commercial bind; that is, being compelled by regulation to deliver crude domestically while still being contractually obligated to fulfil prior export commitments.
Non delivery to off-takers or financiers may constitute a breach of contract or loan covenants, while non-compliance with the DCSO exposes producers to regulatory penalties, including fines, suspension, or revocation of licences.
This conflict of obligations creates fertile ground for disputes. Arbitration is likely to be initiated under the relevant offtake agreements, financing contracts, or joint venture arrangements, with parties contesting which obligations take precedence and whether compliance with domestic regulatory mandates constitutes a valid defence under force majeure or change in law clauses. In some instances, foreign lenders or off-takers could initiate arbitration against Nigerian producers, or even the state itself, particularly where the directives are alleged to have frustrated existing contractual rights.
5. Infrastructure and energy transition disputes
Given the energy transition drive across Sub-Saharan Africa, many states have entered into long term contracts such as power purchase agreements and concession arrangements with investors. These projects typically rely on government assurances which could be in the form of policy commitments, stabilisation clauses or incentives, all intended to attract or retain foreign investments. Often, these projects fail or are delayed due to policy reversals, tariff adjustments or withdrawal of incentives which may leave investors with the option of making claims against the states under applicable investment treaties. In particular, disputes will hinge on: (1) allegations of breach of legitimate expectations where investors may argue that they relied on the state’s stable regulatory regime or the state’s specific assurances; and (2) breach of the fair and equitable standard which protects investors from arbitrary and unpredictable state conduct These risks are beginning to surface in Africa where states such as Kenya and South Africa have faced claims over renewable projects implementation, tariff arrangements and state conduct. With states’ inherent right to regulate in the public interest and the investors’ rights to recoup investments, it is expected that investor-state disputes in the renewable energy sector will be a key area for disputes in 2026 and beyond.
In addition, and with the scale of investments in infrastructure and renewable energy projects across Sub-Saharan Africa, commercial disputes are inevitable. A first layer of commercial disputes will likely arise from project financing and construction arrangements, as projects are often financed through intricate structures involving governments, multilateral lenders and private investors.
Cost overruns, delayed completion and disagreements over risk allocation under engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) and concession contracts typically trigger disputes and will continue to do so.
Strategic takeaways and conclusion
Sub-Saharan Africa’s commercial and regulatory landscape is shifting rapidly, with new opportunities emerging alongside increasingly complex risks. While the triggers for future disputes are clear, there are also opportunities for disputes management and strategic resolution.
Investors can also still manage exposure through comprehensive risk allocation and the adoption of proactive dispute-avoidance or dispute management mechanisms.
At Gateley, we continue to work alongside investors, corporations, and states to anticipate and manage these emerging risks through disputes avoidance strategies and effective dispute resolution via arbitration, helping clients protect value and preserve business relationships across jurisdictions. Our experience across complex, cross-border disputes enables us to help clients navigate regulatory transitions and steer disputes towards favourable outcomes.