Canada’s National Contact Point final statement: Barrick Gold and individuals from Bandayi and Mege, Democratic Republic of Congo

May 17, 2024

The handling of this specific instance was informed by the NCP’s specific instance procedures operative as of May 2022, when the specific instance was initiated. The NCP’s initial assessment was based on the 2011 version of the OECD Guidelines.

Summary

1. On May 10, 2022, Canada’s NCP received a request for review from a self-described human rights defender (the Notifier) claiming to represent individuals from Mege and Bandayi in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The request for review raised questions about observance of the Guidelines by Barrick Gold in connection with the operations of Kibali Gold Mines (hereafter “Kibali”), of which Barrick Gold (“Barrick”) is 45% owner and mine operator.
2. The Notifier claimed that the enterprise caused or contributed to alleged adverse human rights impacts resulting from a 2021 operation to resettle individuals inhabiting an “exclusion zone” granted to Kibali by the DRC government.
3. The Notifier also claimed that the enterprise caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts arising from the response by police/State security forces to subsequent unrest in the nearby town of Durba on October 22, 2021. The Notifier alleged that six demonstrators were killed by police during the unrest.
4. The Notifier further claimed that Kibali’s issued share capital was being reported at an “artificially low” level, and that the enterprise was therefore failing to contribute effectively to the public finances of the DRC.
5. In connection with these and other issues, the Notifier questioned the enterprise’s observance of multiple guidelines in Chapters II (General Policies), IV (Human Rights), and XI (Taxation) of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
6. The Notifier asked the NCP to facilitate a mediation with the enterprise, with the aim of reaching agreement on financial compensation for those who allegedly suffered adverse human rights impacts. The Notifier also called on the enterprise to explore ways to help prevent similar adverse impacts from occurring in the future, and to address the alleged tax issues.
7. The Notifier submitted a request for review involving the same issues to the UK NCP, citing AngloGold Ashanti’s 45% ownership of Kibali. However, the UK NCP did not find any significant link between AngloGold Ashanti and the UK. Both the UK and Canadian NCPs consulted with the Notifier about this issue.On August 2, 2022, the Canadian NCP was informed that the Notifier had withdrawn the request for review submitted to the UK NCP.
8. During the initial assessment phase, the Canadian NCP Secretariat held separate conversations and had several email exchanges with both parties. The Notifier and the enterprise were given the opportunity to provide supporting documentation and clarifications.
9. Barrick denied all the Notifier’s allegations and insisted that it and Kibali had acted consistently with the OECD Guidelines. Barrick told the NCP that the 2021 resettlement was a government-implemented operation to remove illegal occupants from the exclusion zone. The company denied causing or contributing to any adverse human rights impacts associated with the process. Barrick also denied that the enterprise had caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts arising from the police response to the unrest in Durba on October 22, 2021. Barrick emphasized that neither it nor Kibali control local police and that the enterprise had no role in directing the police response to events in Durba on October 22, 2021.
10. A working group of officials from Global Affairs Canada and Natural Resources Canada examined the case. Based on the working group’s recommendation, the NCP offered its good offices to facilitate dialogue between the parties solely regarding the Notifier’s allegation that the enterprise contributed to adverse human rights impacts arising from the 2021 resettlement operation. The NCP considered the other issues raised by the Notifier to be either not material or not sufficiently substantiated to merit further examination. The NCP did not offer its good offices in respect of these other issues raised by the Notifier, including the allegations concerning Barrick’s policy commitment to human rights; whether the enterprise caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts linked to resettlement initiatives prior to 2015; alleged non-compliance with tax obligations in the DRC; or whether the enterprise caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts arising from the police response to the unrest in Durba.
11. The NCP facilitated an initial dialogue between the Notifier and representatives of the enterprise on December 1, 2023. This provided an opportunity for the parties to exchange perspectives and to clarify the potential for further engagement under the NCP’s good offices. Based on the dialogue, the NCP concluded that offering to facilitate further engagement between the parties under its good offices was unlikely to contribute to a resolution of the issue.
12. The NCP has made several recommendations to the enterprise and will follow up with the parties about these recommendations six months from the publication of this Final Statement. The NCP will issue a statement describing the outcomes of this follow-up.
13. The NCP’s assessment of the issues raised, its decision on whether to offer good offices, and its recommendations do not represent or reflect a determination as to whether the enterprise observed the Guidelines in this specific instance. This Final Statement should not be seen as validating to any degree – one way or the other – claims made by either party.

Substance of the request for review

14. The Notifier described himself as a human rights defender based in the DRC. He claimed to represent at least 129 individuals who were relocated from an “exclusion zone” near the Kibali mine in fall 2021. The Notifier also claimed to represent relations of individuals allegedly killed by police/State security forces during subsequent unrest in the town of Durba on October 22, 2021.
15. Barrick Gold Corporation (the Respondent) is a multinational mining company with gold and copper operations in 12 countries. The Respondent is a corporation governed by the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) and has its registered office in Vancouver. While the Respondent’s board, executive team and personnel are international in character and dispersed around the globe, its corporate office is in Toronto (reportedly comprising approx. 70 staff as of 2019).^{Footnote 1}
16. Barrick has a 45% stake in Kibali, a joint venture company that owns the Kibali gold mine in the northeast DRC. The Kibali mine began commercial production in 2013. Barrick acquired its interest in Kibali as a result of its merger with Randgold in 2019. AngloGold Ashanti has a 45% ownership stake in Kibali, while a DRC State-owned enterprise called SOKIMO owns the remaining 10%. Barrick is the mine operator.

Notifier’s perspectives

17. The Notifier’s allegations concerned an operation to relocate individuals living in and around the village sites of Bandayi and Mege in fall 2021. The Notifier characterized the operation  as an unlawful eviction that involved the forced removal of inhabitants, as well as the uncompensated destruction of their dwellings, crops, and personal property. According to the Notifier, these individuals had little or no notice of the eviction, with some allegedly fleeing in surprise as demolition equipment arrived on site. The Notifier said there was little opportunity for inhabitants to save personal belongings and that many were left without alternative shelter.
18. The Notifier claimed that the Respondent was responsible for the operation and how it was carried out. He alleged that machinery and personnel used to demolish and clear the dwellings were “sent” by Kibali, and that the police forces involved in the operation were being paid by the company and acting at the company’s direction. The Notifier said that Kibali provides food, accommodation, and other support to the local police.
19. The Notifier claimed that the operation was the reason for a demonstration that took place in and around the town of Durba on October 22, 2021. According to the Notifier, six demonstrators were subsequently killed by police/security agents acting “sous l’ordre” of Kibali.
20. In connection with these events, the Notifier alleged non-observance of several guidelines. His request for review specifically cited Chapter II (paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) and Chapter IV (paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
21. The Notifier further claimed that the Respondent was not effectively meeting its tax obligations in the DRC (Chapter XI). Specifically, the Notifier believed that Kibali’s issued share capital was being maintained or reported at an “artificially low” level relative to the company’s revenues, in order to avoid paying certain fees/taxes allegedly required by DRC law.
22. The Notifier asked the NCP to facilitate a mediation with the Respondent with the aim of agreeing on compensation for those who allegedly suffered adverse human rights impacts during the resettlement operation, and for relations of individuals allegedly killed by police/State security forces during the unrest in Durba.The Notifier also called on the Respondent to explore means to avoid similar adverse impacts from occurring in the future, and to address the alleged tax issues.

Respondent’s perspectives

23. The Respondent insisted that the enterprise acted consistently with the OECD Guidelines, as well as relevant standards of international human rights law, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and all relevant DRC laws.
24. According to the Respondent, in 2010 the DRC government granted Kibali the right to establish two exclusion zones near its mine site: Exclusion Zone “A” and Exclusion Zone “B”. Exclusion Zone B encompassed the village sites of Mege and Bandayi. Construction of new settlements and homes in these zones was banned, and the company was authorized to resettle existing inhabitants outside the zones.
25. Between 2010 and 2015, Kibali concluded a company-led resettlement of residents in the exclusion zones. The Respondent said this process involved extensive consultation with local stakeholders and that those affected were duly compensated.The Respondent said that the exclusion zones were free from settlement following completion of the process in 2015.
26. The Respondent said that Exclusion Zone A was fenced-in, while the boundaries of Exclusion Zone B were demarcated with appropriate beacons and signage denoting it as a prohibited area. The Respondent said that awareness campaigns were also conducted to inform surrounding communities of the ban on settlement in the zones. Despite these measures, the Respondent said that individuals began to settle illegally in Exclusion Zone B after 2015. The Respondent raised this issue with government authorities at both the provincial and national levels between 2015 and 2020.
27. In February 2021, government authorities initiated a process to remove and resettle individuals then inhabiting Exclusion Zone B. A February 22, 2021 “Provincial Decree” established a commission to plan, organize and undertake the resettlement, and to demolish illegal structures and relocate individuals in the zone, including illegal miners. According to the Respondent, DRC authorities provided notification of the resettlement to those living in the exclusion zone, including by radio announcements.
28. The Respondent said that Kibali wrote to the provincial government to insist that humanitarian considerations be observed in the resettlement operation. The Respondent said that this request led to meetings between Kibali and government officials, during which the enterprise emphasized the importance of good relations with surrounding communities; respect for human rights; and the need for awareness campaigns about the resettlement. According to the Respondent, the “Government Implemented Resettlement” process was subsequently delayed by a few months so that humanitarian considerations could be better addressed.
29. Overall, the Respondent said that Kibali encouraged government officials to carry out the resettlement in a safe manner, without infringing human rights. The enterprise also offered to share its own expertise regarding resettlement operations with the government commission, and provided logistical and humanitarian assistance to support certain aspects of relocating individuals from the exclusion zone (e.g., helping prepare resettlement sites and drilling boreholes for access to water).
30. Still, the Respondent maintained that Kibali was not involved in what it describes as a government-led resettlement process, and denied the claims that the enterprise had any control over the police, security forces or other personnel involved in implementing the eviction operation itself.
31. The Respondent said that the unrest in Durba on October 22, 2021, was initiated by a group of predominantly illegal miners, who called for a riot to protest a number of issues, including government measures to evict illegal miners from Kibali permits. The Respondent understands that two civilians and one police officer were killed when a local police station was attacked during the unrest.
32. The Respondent denied that the enterprise directed or instructed police or other State authorities in relation to the response to the unrest. The Respondent claimed that the violence on that day did not arise out of any actions taken by Kibali, and rejected claims that Barrick or Kibali could direct or arrange for police or other State security forces to act in the manner alleged by the Notifier.
33. The Respondent noted that Kibali engages a private contractor to provide security for the mine site, but that the contractor’s personnel are unarmed. The Respondent confirmed that Kibali has a written agreement with the provincial and DRC governments in relation to security for its mining operations and stated that this arrangement is in line with the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.
34. The Respondent’s understanding is that the police units who responded to the unrest on October 22, 2021 in Durba did not fall within the ambit of the agreement between Kibali and the provincial and DRC governments. Overall, the Respondent emphasized that the police and State security forces operate under their own chain of command and direction.
35. The Respondent considered all of the Notifier’s allegations unfounded and requested that the specific instance be closed. The Respondent did not consider the Notifier’s claims for resettlement compensation to be appropriate given what it considered the illegal nature of the settlement in the exclusion zone.

Additional claims by the Notifier

36. Some time after submitting the request for review, the Notifier claimed that Kibali had not in fact resettled and/or appropriately compensated several residents of the exclusion zones prior to 2015. He suggested that several of the individuals impacted by the 2021 resettlement had been living continuously in the zone from before 2015, and that they deserved compensation from the enterprise for the loss of their dwellings, belongings, and crops on this basis.
37. The Notifier also questioned the validity of the exclusion zones themselves, pointing to a 2019 lease agreement for a parcel of land allegedly within one of the exclusion zones and allegedly validated by relevant local authorities. The NCP did not see a viable basis to explore this question further and did not seek submissions from the Respondent on the issue.

Initial assessment

38. The NCP completed an initial assessment based on information and documents submitted by the Notifier and the Respondent, as well as publicly available information such as media reports. The initial assessment considered whether the issues raised were bona fide and relevant to the implementation of the Guidelines, taking into account:
    • the identity of the party concerned and its interest in the matter
    • whether the issue(s) were material and substantiated
    • whether there seemed to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issue(s) raised in the specific instance
    • the relevance of applicable law and procedures, including court rulings
    • how similar issues had been, or were being treated in other domestic or international proceedings
    • whether the consideration of the specific issue(s) would contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the Guidelines
39. The NCP’s initial assessment focused on the Notifier’s claims that the enterprise:
    • caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts arising from the exclusion zone resettlement operation in 2021
    • caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts resulting from the police response to the unrest in Durba on October 22, 2021
    • lacked a policy commitment to human rights
    • failed to compensate/resettle certain inhabitants who had been living continuously in the exclusion zone from before 2015
    • was not contributing effectively to the public finances of the DRC

Identity of the party concerned and its interest in the matter

40. The Notifier’s clients claimed to have been directly impacted by the issues raised and appeared to have an interest in the matter. Information provided to the NCP indicated that the Notifier was representing the individuals in a professional capacity, being entitled to a share of any compensation paid to his clients in the event an agreement was reached with the enterprise as a result of the NCP process.

Whether the issues were material and substantiated

Materiality

41. In assessing whether the issues raised are “material”, the question is whether the issues have clear and meaningful relevance to the Guidelines.
42. The issues raised by the Notifier appeared to be material to some of the guidelines cited in his request for review, namely those concerning due diligence and respect for human rights.
43. The issues raised by the Notifier did not appear material to several guidelines cited in his request for review, specifically: Chapter II paragraphs 3 (encourage local capacity building); 6 (good corporate governance principles and practices); 7 (self-regulatory practices and management systems); 13 (encourage business partners to apply principles of responsible business conduct compatible with the Guidelines); and 15 (abstain from improper involvement in local political activities).
44. Although the Notifier cited paragraph 3 of Chapter IV in the request for review, it was unclear how this was material to the issues raised. The “business relationship” cited in this context was the relationship between Barrick and Kibali. However, both appeared to be part of the multinational enterprise implicated in this specific instance.
45. Based on the information provided by the Notifier, it was difficult to assess whether the issue raised regarding the enterprise’s tax obligations was material to Chapter XI of the Guidelines. Even if material to Chapter XI, the issue was not in any case adequately substantiated, as discussed below.

Substantiation

46. The NCP only assessed the substantiation of issues which it considered plausibly material to the Guidelines.
47. In assessing substantiation, the question is whether the issues raised are based on a plausible and coherent interpretation of events, supported by a reasonably compelling and credible evidence base. The available information does not have to prove conclusively, or even on a balance of probabilities, that certain events occurred or that the enterprise acted in a particular way. This reflects the preliminary nature of the initial assessment, and its objective of determining whether the issues raised merit further examination, namely through dialogue/mediation facilitated by the NCP.

48. It is important to note that where the NCP considers an issue sufficiently “substantiated”, the NCP simply recognizes that the issue appears to merit further examination and an offer of the NCP’s good offices, given the available information. This does not represent a finding as to whether the enterprise observed the Guidelines and should not be seen as validating claim(s) made by the parties.

    Whether the enterprise contributed to adverse human rights impacts linked to the 2021 exclusion zone resettlement operation

49. The NCP considered this issue sufficiently substantiated to be the subject of further dialogue under the NCP’s good offices. In coming to this conclusion, the NCP took note of media and other reports indicating shortcomings in the 2021 resettlement operation. The NCP also noted that the resettlement operation involved lands within or in the vicinity of the Kibali mine exclusion zone. Available information also indicated that the enterprise had engaged with government authorities about the resettlement process and put its expertise and some resources at their disposal (the Respondent has emphasized that this was in the form of logistical and humanitarian assistance). This does not represent a finding that the enterprise in fact contributed to the alleged adverse impacts or failed to observe the Guidelines. Rather, the context and available information simply suggested a reasonable basis to examine the issue further through dialogue under the NCP’s good offices.

    Whether the enterprise caused or contributed to alleged adverse human rights impacts during the October 22 unrest in Durba

50. The NCP did not consider this issue sufficiently substantiated to be the subject of further examination and dialogue under the NCP’s good offices. The Notifier offered little elaboration on how the enterprise was supposed to have “caused” or “contributed” to the alleged adverse impacts associated with the police response, within the meaning of the Guidelines. Overall, the information available to the NCP and the apparent nature of the events in Durba on October 22 did not suggest there to be a reasonable basis for examining the issue further under the NCP’s good offices.

    Whether the enterprise had a policy commitment to human rights

51. The NCP did not consider this issue sufficiently substantiated, as the Notifier did not explain how the enterprise’s publicly available policies were insufficient with respect to the recommendation in paragraph 4 of Chapter IV.

    Whether the enterprise caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts linked to resettlement initiatives prior to 2015

52. The NCP was not presented with compelling substantiation of the Notifier’s claim that Kibali had failed to vacate the exclusion zones prior to 2015, or that it had failed to provide adequate compensation to resettled inhabitants as part of that process. This does not represent a finding as to whether Kibali observed the Guidelines in relation to resettlement activities prior to 2015. However, based on the available information, there did not appear to be a reasonable basis to explore this issue further under the NCP’s good offices.

    Whether the enterprise is fulfilling its tax obligations in the DRC

53. The NCP did not consider this issue sufficiently substantiated. The Notifier did not adequately explain what he meant by the alleged “discrepancy” between Kibali’s declared share capital and revenues and how this was supposed to relate to the enterprise’s observance of the recommendations in Chapter XI.

Whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issues raised in the Specific Instance

54. There seemed to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the 2021 resettlement operation, which was undertaken to vacate an exclusion zone created to facilitate Kibali’s commercial activities.

Relevance of applicable law and procedures, including court rulings

55. The Respondent referred the NCP to an April 2022 judgement by the Kinshasa/Gombe Commercial Tribunal (Tribunal de commerce de Kinshasa/Gombe). The judgement considered a claim by 1,037 self-identified residents of the village of Bandayi against both Kibali and the DRC. It appears the judgement dismissed the action on procedural grounds, without making determinations regarding fact or liability. It therefore appeared to have limited relevance for the NCP’s initial assessment.
56. The Notifier claimed that the alleged conduct of Kibali violated articles 16, 19, 34, and 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of the DRC. These articles concern rights to life, safety and property. The Notifier also referred to article 285 bis of the DRC’s Code minier. While the NCP took note of these constitutional and statutory provisions, it was unclear how they were to inform the NCP’s initial assessment, except to the extent that they affirmed certain local expectations regarding the importance of human rights and general principles concerning responsibility for damage caused by mining activities. The Notifier did not point to any court decisions related to his claim that Kibali had violated DRC law.

How similar issues have been, or are being, treated in other domestic or international proceedings

57. During the initial assessment, the NCP was informed about four domestic proceedings that had been or were potentially looking into the events related to the issues raised by the Notifier:
    • an ad hoc mission to the area by three DRC parliamentarians in October 2021
    • a fact-finding mission by DRC government officials focused on the response to the unrest in Durba
    • an assessment of events by local NGOs
    • a judicial investigation initiated in relation to “illegal constructions” in Exclusion Zone B
    Of these proceedings, only the outcomes of the ad hoc mission of parliamentarians were available to the NCP. The NCP did not have additional information on the status or outcomes of other proceedings.
58. The parliamentarians’ report indicated shortcomings in the government commission’s approach to the resettlement process, noting in particular that inhabitants of the Mege village site may not have been adequately notified or provided for. The report suggested that a lack of clear communication with some inhabitants of the zone was one of the factors motivating the demonstrations in Durba. According to the report, police facilities were attacked in the context of those demonstrations. The report cited the use of disproportionate force as a reason for the loss of life.
59. The report included several recommendations to government authorities, civil society, and to the local community. The report also recommended to Kibali that it clearly delimit and secure the perimeters of the exclusion zone by visible and appropriate means, to prevent resettlement of the area. The report further recommended that Kibali provide humanitarian assistance to the populations in distress (the Respondent has noted to the NCP that significant humanitarian assistance had been provided, including iron sheets for shelters, as well as foodstuffs).
60. Overall, the information available to the NCP did not suggest that exploring the issue raised by the Notifier would be prejudicial to parallel proceedings.

Whether the consideration of the specific issue(s) would contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the Guidelines

61. The NCP concluded that further consideration of the issue raised concerning the alleged contribution of the enterprise to adverse human rights impacts arising from the 2021 resettlement operation had potential to contribute to the purposes of the Guidelines, particularly the objective of strengthening the basis of mutual confidence between the multinational enterprise and the society in which it operates.

Good offices

62. The NCP offered its good offices to contribute to the resolution of the issue raised regarding the enterprise’s alleged contribution to adverse human rights impacts associated with the 2021 exclusion zone resettlement. The NCP did not offer its good offices in relation to any of the other issues raised by the Notifier, including the enterprise’s alleged contribution to adverse impacts arising from the police response to unrest in Durba on October 22, 2021.
63. The NCP proposed an initial dialogue between the parties to exchange information and help clarify the issue, prior to considering further dialogue/mediation. The Notifier accepted this offer of good offices. While the Respondent disagreed with the NCP’s assessment that the issue was adequately substantiated, it also agreed to participate in the initial dialogue.
64. The initial dialogue took place virtually on December 1, 2023. The Respondent was represented by three participants, including a senior executive. The Notifier participated alone. There appeared to be some value in facilitating this direct exchange between the parties. However, what the NCP observed for the most part was the reiteration of previously expressed positions and information, and little initiative to achieve a basis for more focused and productive dialogue on potential resolution of the issue at hand.
65. The NCP determined that offering to facilitate further dialogue/mediation under its good offices was unlikely to contribute to a resolution of the issue. With this Final Statement, the NCP considers the good offices phase concluded.

Recommendations

66. During the specific instance, the Respondent suggested that the issues raised by the Notifier and his clients were potentially rooted in misperceptions of the enterprise’s involvement in the 2021 resettlement process, and of its relationship with local police. To address any such misperceptions and to foster greater confidence between the enterprise and the local community, the NCP recommends that the enterprise:
    • As appropriate and permitted, consider disclosing and/or encouraging the disclosure of more information about the enterprise’s engagement with government authorities around the planning and execution of the 2021 resettlement, including information on how any company machinery might have been employed in connection with that process.
    • As appropriate and permitted, consider disclosing and/or encouraging the disclosure of more information about the nature of the enterprise’s relationship with local police and public security authorities, including any arrangement for the provision of material support by the enterprise to public security partners.
    • Continue to engage with the community to promote understanding of the role of local police in providing security for the mine site.
    • Continue to engage with and support local authorities in promoting respect for human rights in law enforcement and security activities related to the mine.
    • Communicate with the local community about how the “many lessons learned following the eviction of the illegal settlement on the Kibali mining lease” (Barrick Gold’s 2021 Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights report)^{Footnote 2} have been addressed in the enterprise’s operations and policies.
    • Communicate to the local community the enterprise’s expectations concerning respect for human rights in any future government-led resettlement operations involving the Kibali mine.
    • Communicate to the local community the principles that will guide the enterprise’s engagement with local authorities and stakeholders in the planning and execution of any future resettlement operations involving the Kibali mine.
67. The NCP takes note of the enterprise’s ongoing efforts and initiatives regarding responsible business conduct and the Kibali mine, as outlined in Barrick Gold’s corporate reporting. The NCP recognizes that the enterprise has already or may be undertaking initiatives aligned with the recommendations outlined above.
68. The foregoing recommendations should not be seen as implying a particular deficiency in the enterprise’s approach. However, the NCP is of the view that addressing these recommendations has the potential to reinforce the enterprise’s alignment with the OECD Guidelines going forward, particularly with respect to:
    • Chapter II’s recommendations on due diligence and meaningful stakeholder engagement
    • Chapter III’s recommendations concerning disclosure, particularly those regarding the disclosure of responsible business conduct information
    • Chapter IV’s recommendations on human rights due diligence
69. The NCP will follow up with the parties six months from the publication of this Final Statement about these recommendations and will describe the outcomes of its follow-up in a published statement.
70. It should be stressed that the NCP’s Final Statement in no way asserts that events occurred in the way alleged by the Notifier, nor is it a determination as to whether or not the Respondent observed the Guidelines in this specific instance.

Alleged incidents involving local police during the NCP process

71. During the initial assessment, the Notifier informed the NCP that two individuals were allegedly arrested by police based in the vicinity of the Kibali mine. The Notifier said one of the individuals was a member of his client group and that both arrests were linked to the individuals’ support for initiating a review process with Canada’s NCP. At the Notifier’s request, the NCP provided his information about the alleged arrests to the Respondent.
72. The Respondent emphasized that the enterprise had never communicated with local authorities or police about the specific instance and reiterated that the enterprise did not control local police or direct their activities. The Respondent also underscored that it had not been provided at any point during the NCP process with the names of any individuals whom the Notifier was said to represent. The Respondent rejected any implication that the enterprise had been connected to or involved in acts of intimidation related to the specific instance.
73. Two days after informing the NCP of the alleged arrests, the Notifier told the NCP that the two individuals had been released by police.
74. Later in the initial assessment phase, the Notifier informed the NCP of another alleged arrest by police based in the vicinity of the Kibali mine. The Notifier said that the individual’s “support” for the specific instance had been cited as a reason for the arrest. At the Notifier’s request, the NCP conveyed the Notifier’s information about this alleged incident to the Respondent. The Respondent again rejected any implication that the enterprise was involved or connected with the arrest. The Respondent reiterated that the enterprise did not control or direct the activities of local police.
75. These alleged incidents are described in this Final Statement pursuant to the principle of transparency under which the NCP operates. Canada’s NCP takes no position on the veracity of the Notifier’s claims, including the suggestion of a link between the arrests and the specific instance. It is important to note that the NCP did not receive any information to suggest that the enterprise was itself involved with the alleged arrests.

Timeline

• May 10, 2022 - Written request for review received
• July 8, 2022 - Joint call with Notifier, Canadian NCP, UK NCP
• August 11, 2022 - Canada NCP call with the Respondent
• August 19, 2022 - Notifier’s Request for Review shared with the Respondent
• September 22, 2022 - Written response from Respondent (shared with Notifier)
• November 2022 - Additional materials received from Notifier and Respondent
• June 1, 2023 - Draft Initial Assessment to the parties, with offer to convene an initial dialogue
• June 30, 2023 - Final comments from the parties received
• August 28, 2023 - Finalized Initial Assessment shared with the parties
• December 1, 2023 - Initial dialogue facilitated by the NCP
• February 2, 2024 - Draft Final Statement sent to the parties
• April 4, 2024 - Final comments received from the parties
• April19, 2024 - Final Statement approved by the NCP