Africa’s Mining Problem Is Not Vision — It’s Capture

Africa does not lack ideas about how its mineral wealth should drive development.

It lacks control over when and how mining futures are locked in.

From the African Mining Vision to national industrialisation strategies, the continent has articulated some of the most ambitious thinking on extractives anywhere in the world. Yet outcomes on the ground remain stubbornly unchanged: enclave production, limited value addition, fiscal leakage, and weak domestic linkages.

This gap between vision and outcome is often blamed on weak implementation, corruption, or capacity constraints. These factors matter. But they miss the deeper issue.

Africa’s mining problem is not vision.
It is capture.

Futures are being captured before they are debated

Most mining debates focus on what happens after extraction begins: how revenues are disclosed, how companies comply with standards, how governments manage receipts. By that stage, the most important decisions are already settled.

Mining futures are captured upstream, through early commitments that are legally binding, financially constraining, and politically difficult to reverse. These commitments include:

• Long-term contracts and stabilisation clauses
• Fiscal regimes and tax exemptions
• Infrastructure corridors and financing structures
• Compliance frameworks that signal closure rather than scrutiny

Once these are in place, alternative futures—beneficiation, diversification, domestic processing—remain rhetorically alive but institutionally unreachable.

Capture does not require corruption.
It requires early closure.

Transparency did not prevent capture—it enabled it

Over the past two decades, Africa has embraced transparency-led reform. Disclosure initiatives, reporting standards, and certification schemes have multiplied. Many countries now meet global benchmarks once thought unattainable.

This progress is real. But it has been misinterpreted.

Transparency widened what could be seen. It did not widen who could decide.

In practice, transparency often functioned as a legitimacy device. Deals could proceed once disclosed. Fiscal regimes could persist once reported. Compliance replaced contestation.

The result was a paradox: mining sectors became more transparent even as their futures became more tightly locked in.

Capture did not occur despite reform.
It occurred through reform.

Three sites of capture that matter more than all the rhetoric

If Africa wants different extractive outcomes, it must focus on three sites where capture consistently occurs.

First: contractual capture.
Mining and infrastructure contracts are often signed before parliaments, courts, or citizens have meaningful input. Once signed, these contracts define the boundaries of policy for decades. Renegotiation becomes the exception, not the rule.

Second: fiscal capture.
Tax terms, incentives, and exemptions are fixed early. These design choices quietly determine who benefits from extraction long before revenues are collected. Later debates about redistribution are constrained by decisions already embedded in law.

Third: standards capture.
Compliance with international standards and “best practice” frameworks often substitutes for political accountability. Once a country is deemed compliant, pressure eases—even if participation, oversight, and redistribution remain weak.

These capture points are legal.
They are transparent.
And they are decisive.

Why Africa keeps reforming without transforming

Africa’s leaders are repeatedly told that better outcomes require more reform. But reform usually arrives after capture has already occurred.

By the time value addition is discussed, production models are fixed.
By the time local content is negotiated, supply chains are locked in.
By the time citizens are invited to monitor revenues, the future has already been allocated.

This is why the African Mining Vision keeps colliding with reality. Not because it is unrealistic, but because it is chronologically outmatched.

Vision arrives downstream.
Capture happens upstream.

The real governance challenge: reclaiming the moment of decision

If Africa wants to turn mineral wealth into development, it must stop treating participation as an afterthought.

Participation must come before commitment.

That means:

• Parliamentary approval before major extractive contracts are signed
• Public scrutiny of fiscal regimes before incentives are granted
• Clear veto points where projects can be delayed or revised
• Regional coordination to prevent competitive undercutting

These measures slow deals. They frustrate investors seeking certainty.

But certainty achieved too early is precisely how capture works.

A message for the AU Summit and Mining Indaba

Africa does not need another declaration about mining-led development. It needs to confront a harder truth.

The continent’s extractive future is not failing because leaders lack ambition.
It is failing because decisions that matter most are made too early, by too few, and too quietly.

Until Africa regains control over the timing of commitment, vision will continue to trail capture.

And mining summits will continue to celebrate futures that are already gone