SIGNAL WATCH
Signal 1 · RegulatorySignal 3 · Geopolitical

Kinshasa Reopens Its Mining Code — and Puts the Stabilisation Clause Back on the Table

On 13 June 2026 the DRC introduced a bill to amend roughly 40 articles of its 2018 mining code, adding a power to cap production and stockpile strategic minerals on top of a 50% windfall levy and a 10% strategic-mineral royalty. Days after tax officials sealed and then unsealed Glencore's KCC offices in Lualaba, the Chamber of Mines called an emergency meeting. The question for operators is the one the 2018 rewrite already answered once: how much of a stabilisation clause survives when the state decides to legislate.

July 23, 2026·Democratic Republic of the Congo·Copper · Cobalt · Lithium·6 min read
Satellite view of the Kolwezi copper-cobalt district in Lualaba, DRC, showing processing plants, tailings ponds and open pits carved into the surrounding bush.
The Kolwezi copper-cobalt district in Lualaba, where Glencore's KCC, CMOC's Tenke Fungurume and Ivanhoe's Kamoa-Kakula sit. The plants and pits here run on permits whose stability the state is now proposing to legislate around.·Satellite imagery: Esri World Imagery

What happened

On 13 June 2026 the government introduced a bill to amend roughly 40 articles of the DRC's 2018 mining code. The draft would give the state broader powers to limit production and to stockpile strategic minerals, on top of the code's existing 50% windfall-profits tax and the 10% royalty that applies to minerals on the strategic list. Over May and June 2026 the DRC widened that list, adding lithium, tantalum, niobium, tungsten, uranium and rare earths to a tier that already held cobalt, germanium and coltan, which raised the royalty on those minerals to 10% from 3.5%. The Chamber of Mines convened an emergency meeting in Kinshasa, and the government said it would hear the sector's concerns before finalising the text.

The reform arrives in the middle of an enforcement wave. An October 2025 state audit accused major miners, Glencore's KCC, CMOC's Tenke Fungurume and Ivanhoe's Kamoa-Kakula among them, of underreporting $16.8bn of revenue between 2018 and 2023, and recommended suspensions and prosecutions. On 16 July 2026 tax officials sealed KCC's offices in Lualaba over a multi-billion-dollar assessment Glencore disputes; the finance minister ordered the seals removed days later as talks resumed. Running alongside all of it is a December 2025 minerals deal with Washington that commits the DRC to legal and regulatory reform within twelve months and gives preferential treatment to US-backed projects, including a $9bn Orion Critical Mineral Consortium plan to buy 40% of Glencore's KCC and Mutanda stakes.

Why it matters for dispute formation

The lever here is production, not price. A power to cap output and direct a stockpile lets the state throttle a mine without touching its title, which is the same mechanism a supplier uses to defend a market and a very hard thing to characterise cleanly in a claim. It sits next to a fiscal step-up: a 50% windfall tax, and a royalty on lithium and five other minerals that just tripled to 10%. For an operator, the exposure lands first on the contracts that assumed a fixed regime, the offtake volumes, the financing covenants, the force-majeure language, and only later on the concession itself.

The sharper issue is the stabilisation clause, and the DRC has litigated this before. The 2018 code cut stabilisation from ten years to five and applied the new terms to permits already granted, over the objection of the majors. This bill reopens that seam. A claim built on a general expectation that the rules would hold tends to fail; the claims that survive are anchored in a written commitment, a stabilisation clause in a mining convention, a specific fiscal guarantee, a signed investment agreement. The work for counsel is to read each title against the specific clause it carries, to date every representation the state made and when the operator relied on it, and to separate a lawful tax change from a measure whose effect on a single project looks expropriatory. The Orion deal adds a second layer, because a US-backed buyer stepping into KCC inherits both the assessment history and the reform risk, and a treaty claim can turn on which flag the ultimate parent flies.

Who's exposed

Glencore (KCC · Mutanda)

Exposed on two fronts at once. Congolese tax officials sealed the Kamoto Copper Company offices in Lualaba in mid-July 2026 before the finance minister ordered the seals lifted days later, part of a broader push tied to a state audit that alleged $16.8bn of underreported revenue across major miners between 2018 and 2023. The proposed code changes land while a $9bn Orion consortium deal to take 40% of KCC and Mutanda is in play.

Ivanhoe Mines · CMOC (Kamoa-Kakula · Tenke Fungurume)

Exposed as the two largest copper producers whose economics were built on the 2018 code's terms. A new power to cap output and stockpile strategic minerals, layered on the 50% windfall tax and 10% strategic-mineral royalty, reaches operations that move most of the country's copper and a large share of its cobalt.

Barrick (Kibali) · KoBold Metals (Manono area)

Exposed as operators who have said the rules keep moving. Kibali's head, Cyrille Mutombo, warned that annual finance-law changes change how the mine plans; KoBold's Benjamin Katabuka said rules should not shift in the middle of the game. KoBold's lithium exposure sits directly under the strategic-mineral reclassification that lifts the royalty to 10% from 3.5%.

Holders of pre-2018 stabilised titles

Exposed to the same question the 2018 rewrite raised: whether a stabilisation clause negotiated under an older code still binds a state that has decided to legislate. The 2018 code shortened stabilisation from ten years to five and applied the change to existing permit-holders. This bill tests how far that logic now runs.

The historical parallel · First Quantum v. DRC / Gécamines (Kolwezi · Frontier) — ICC and ICSID, settled 2012 for ~$1.25bn

After the DRC withdrew First Quantum's Kolwezi and Frontier permits in 2009 and 2010 on mining-code grounds, the company ran parallel ICC arbitration against Gécamines and ICSID proceedings against the state, plus a $2bn BVI claim against ENRC. It ended in a roughly $1.25bn settlement and the withdrawal of the claims. The case is the DRC's reminder that a code-based withdrawal of rights can become an investor-state fight measured in billions, and that these disputes usually clear by settlement rather than a merits award. It is the precedent every operator reading the current bill should have on the desk.

What to watch

  • The final text of the amendment bill: whether the production-cap and stockpile powers survive the Chamber of Mines consultation, and on what triggers and compensation terms.
  • Resolution of the KCC tax assessment and whether the office-sealing pattern extends to CMOC or Ivanhoe operations.
  • Whether the $9bn Orion acquisition of KCC and Mutanda closes, and how the buyer treats the assessment and stabilisation exposure it inherits.
  • Any notice of dispute or arbitration filed under a mining convention's stabilisation clause as the new terms reach existing permit-holders.

Sources

See the disputes forming before the market does.

Signal Watch tracks the developments. The monthly Intelligence Brief synthesizes all four signals into the disputes most likely to crystallize next — free.

Get the Intelligence Brief

For general information only; not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is formed through this article. Company names appear because the operators are exposed to a public development — not as a statement of wrongdoing or a predicted outcome. Figures are as reported by the linked sources.

AxisMinerals.ai

An early-warning system for mining disputes — synthesizing legal, markets, geopolitical, and historical signals. Built by a lawyer specializing in international mining arbitration.

FOUR SIGNALS. ONE SYNTHESIS.

© 2026 Axis Minerals · All rights reserved

LEGAL · MARKETS · GEOPOLITICS · HISTORY

The information provided by Axis Minerals is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed through use of this platform or any of its content. Nothing on this site should be relied upon as legal advice. For legal advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.