EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE AT THE NORTH MARA MINE
The North Mara Mine: excessive use of force, Group Lawsuit Settlements, and Winning Back Trust
In 2013, a group of Tanzanians filed a lawsuit in the UK High Court against Barrick Gold and the North Mara Mine after alleged incidents involving the use of excessive force by police and private security resulting in deaths and injuries at the mine. The Defendants attempted to file a duplicate action in Tanzania, asking the court to declare that the company could not be held liable for the actions of their security, but the Tanzanian claimants obtained an injunction preventing the defendants from initiating duplicative proceedings; the case was ultimately settled out of court in 2015.
Keywords: clash with locals, extractive industry
Background
The North Mara Mine is located in the Tarime district of the Mara region of Tanzania. An indigenous community, the Kurya of North Mara, live in the area of the mine.
Similar to the Porgera mine, both private security forces and Tanzanian police provide security for the mine through successive memorandum of understanding agreements. Under the memorandum of understanding, the North Mara mine provides police with fuel, vehicles, accommodation, and administrative support.
In November 2014, Tanzanian authorities wrote a letter to Barrick Gold calling for “zero intrusions and zero fatalities.” The letter requested that Barrick Gold remove police guards and relinquish certain areas of small-scale mining operations in order to accomplish this goal.
According to interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch, villagers in the area recounted that they had to pay the mine’s private security and police bribes to enter certain areas of the mine. Further, in a 2017 Human Rights report on the mine, the US State Department noted that the “most significant human rights issues” included alleged excess use of force, deprivation of life, and lengthy pretrial detention. Another report in 2017, from Acacia (now owned by Barrick Gold), reported that there had been 7 allegations of excessive use of force by private security during 2016, and 16 allegations of the same nature in 2015.
In August of 2018, MiningWatch noted that there was a decline in security related deaths in and around the mine, which a member of the mine’s Grievance Committee attributed to the new practice of expelling officers implicated in cases of excess use of force.
The Incident
At the North Mara Mine, alleged incidents involving the use of excessive force by police and security resulted in six deaths and other injuries in 2008. One man was paralysed involving an alleged gunshot to his spine. According to Acacia Mining, whose parent company is Barrick Gold, the majority of the claims originated from an incident involving “violent intruders who invaded the mine.”
Legal Aspects
Court cases
In 2013, a group of Tanzanians filed a lawsuit in the UK High Court against Barrick Gold and North Mara Gold mine. The claimants allege that the companies were complicit in killings and injuries of villagers by police and security at the mine, in that the companies failed to prevent the use of excessive force.
After the UK legal proceedings were initiated, a Barrick Gold subsidiary initiated legal proceedings in a local court of Tanzania, asking the court to declare that the company could not be held liable for the actions of the police and security.
After learning about the Tanzanian legal proceedings, the Tanzanian claimants obtained an injunction from the UK court barring the defendants from initiating duplicate proceedings in Tanzania. The English judge criticised Barrick Gold’s Tanzanian proceedings as an attempted “Tanzanian Torpedo» designed to pre-empt the English proceedings. Thus, the proceedings were able to continue in the English High Court.
The International Code of Conduct
The International Code of Conduct requires that Personnel of Member and Affiliate companies take all reasonable steps to avoid the use of force, and if force is used, it should be proportionate to the threat and appropriate to the situation. (Rules for the Use of Force : paragraph 29, Use of Force : paragraph 30-32).
Additionally, security personnel are only allowed to apprehend persons to defend themselves or others against an imminent threat of violence following an attack or crime against Company Personnel, clients, or property under their protection. Apprehension and detention must be consistent with international and national law, and all apprehended and detained persons must be treated humanely and consistent with their status and protections under applicable human rights law and international humanitarian law. (Detention: paragraph 33)
Resources on Apprehending Persons
Further, the International Code of Conduct requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45 to 49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.
Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.
Impact
In an interview with the Financial Post, Mark Bristow, president of Barrick Gold, acknowledged that the company had neglected its relationship with the community, and emphasised a desire to build a mining company “that’s acceptable to future generations.”
In 2015, the lawsuit between the 13 Tanzanian villagers and Barrick Gold regarding deaths and injuries at the North Mara Mine was confidentially settled out of court.
In 2012, Barrick Gold acknowledged the rape problem at the Porgera Mine and created the Porgera Remedy Framework, a non-judicial process organized by the company to hear claims of sexual violence.
Discussion and Reflection Questions
What can a private security company do to “win back the trust” of a community after an incident occurs?
What can a private security company and their client do to handle property intrusions while avoiding unnecessary use of force?
How can private security companies and their clients prevent sexual abuse and exploitation of vulnerable populations?
Related Incidents
- Violent Repelling of Illegal Miners Leading to Litigation
- Violence and Sexual Assaults at Kakuzi Farms
- Escobal Mine: Violent Repression of Indigenous Protests
- Repression of the Protests Against the Rio Blanco Mine
Sources
- OHCHR | Report on the relationship between private military and security companies and extractive industry companies from a human rights perspective in law and practice
- Tanzanians sue Canada’s Barrick Gold over alleged abuses at mine | Mining News | Al Jazeera
- Tanzanians sue Barrick Gold in Canada over alleged mine shootings by police | Reuters
- African Barrick Gold lawsuit (re Tanzania) – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
- British gold mining firm agrees settlement over deaths of Tanzanian villagers
Case prepared by: Madison Zeeman
Descargo de responsabilidad
De acuerdo con la cláusula de exención de responsabilidad de la página de inicio, ni la Asociación del Código de Conducta Internacional ni ninguno de los autores pueden identificarse con las opiniones expresadas en el texto o las fuentes incluidas en «Defender la Seguridad Responsable: El Mapa de Casos del Código Internacional de Conducta».