Image: Forbes Johnston / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0
An ICSID annulment committee set aside in full the 2024 award in West African Aquaculture v The Gambia on 17 July 2026, finding the tribunal did not adequately explain its jurisdictional findings.
An ICSID ad hoc committee annulled in full, on 17 July 2026, the March 2024 award ordering The Gambia to compensate the foreign investors behind a shrimp farm taken over under the former government. The case is West African Aquaculture Ltd, Kurt Lennart Hansson and Martje Bolt Hansson v Republic of The Gambia (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/10). The Point reported on 22 July 2026 that the award, with interest, was worth about US$33.2 million, and that the government had also recovered about US$213,000 in arbitration costs.
The committee’s reasoning
According to an analysis published by Daily Jus on 19 August 2026, the committee was chaired by Dr Veijo Heiskanen, with Erica Stein and Professor Githu Muigai. The Gambia relied on two grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention: manifest excess of powers on jurisdiction and applicable law, and failure to state reasons. The committee annulled the award on the second ground alone, finding insufficient reasoning on five outcome-determinative jurisdictional findings about the written consent to ICSID arbitration required by Article 25(1). The Point quoted the government as saying the tribunal failed to explain properly how Gambian law gave consent to ICSID arbitration.
The Daily Jus author notes that the decision is understood to be the first time an ICSID award has been annulled in full solely for failure to state reasons. Full annulment does not end the dispute: the claimants may resubmit it to a new tribunal.
Counsel
The Gambia was represented by Edi M. O. Faal and Cherie Blair KC of Omnia Strategy, working with state law officers, according to The Point. Attorney General Dawda Jallow said the government would continue to protect public funds while honouring its international obligations.
Why it matters
Failure to state reasons has historically been a difficult ground to win on, and committees have tended to fill gaps in a tribunal’s reasoning rather than annul. A full annulment on this ground alone will be studied by West African states defending ICSID claims, particularly where consent is said to come from a domestic investment law rather than a treaty. The lesson for investors is to secure clear, written consent, ideally in the investment contract or a treaty, rather than relying on interpretation of national legislation. For claimants holding awards against African states, the case shows that an award is not secure until the annulment window has closed, which affects the value of awards used as collateral or sold to funders.
Leave a Reply