By Tse Tse Tuk, Aminu Adamu
A legal dispute is escalating between Nigeria and the United Kingdom after Jupiter Lithium Limited, a UK-based mining firm, initiated international arbitration against the Federal Republic of Nigeria over the collapse of a major lithium project in Kaduna State.
Information that surfaced in late 2025 shows that Jupiter Lithium has filed a case at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), a World Bank-affiliated tribunal that resolves disputes between foreign investors and sovereign states. The case, registered on December 1, 2025, is listed as Jupiter Lithium Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/25/46).
The dispute centres on the Jupiter Critical Minerals Project, widely known as Project Jupiter, which was promoted as Nigeria’s first “Tier 1” lithium mining venture. Covering about 442 square kilometres in Kaduna State, the project was structured to combine lithium extraction with a large refinery for producing battery-grade lithium carbonate, a key component in electric vehicles and renewable energy storage systems.
Industry sources estimate the arbitration claim to be worth billions of dollars, reflecting the projected value of the lithium reserves and investments already made by Jupiter Lithium and its Nigerian partners, Basin Mining and Range Mining. The size of the claim has elevated what began as a regulatory disagreement into a wider diplomatic and economic dispute between Abuja and London.
Treaty protections invoked
Jupiter Lithium is relying on protections under the 1990 Nigeria–United Kingdom Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), which shields UK investors from unlawful expropriation, unfair treatment, and arbitrary state action. The treaty allows unresolved disputes to be referred to international arbitration rather than domestic courts.
The company reportedly issued a formal Notice of Intent in July 2025, as required under the treaty, cautioning that continued regulatory actions could lead to arbitration. After talks failed to resolve the matter, Jupiter Lithium proceeded to file its claim at ICSID.
Although the arbitration filings are confidential, details from industry briefings, investor intelligence reports, and local media have provided insight into the causes of the dispute.
Mining titles and regulatory turbulence
A key grievance relates to the revocation and insecurity of mining licences in Kaduna State. Since taking office, the Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dele Alake, has overseen a sweeping review of mining titles, revoking hundreds deemed dormant or non-compliant as part of efforts to sanitise the sector.
Foreign and local operators, however, have criticised the process as abrupt. Analysts familiar with Project Jupiter say some revocations occurred with minimal notice and limited opportunity for corrective action, alongside new fee and compliance conditions described by investors as unrealistic. Jupiter Lithium argues that these steps violated its legitimate expectations under Nigerian law and the UK–Nigeria BIT.
The situation was worsened by alleged overlapping licences. The company reportedly found that areas already leased to its Nigerian partners were later allocated to third parties, creating legal uncertainty and stalling operations. Critics attribute such overlaps to systemic weaknesses within the Mining Cadastre Office (MCO), which manages mineral titles.
Local processing mandate
The dispute also coincided with Nigeria’s revised lithium policy, which requires domestic processing of mined lithium to ensure local value addition. The policy was designed to avoid a repeat of the oil sector model, where raw resources were exported with limited downstream benefits.
Jupiter Lithium initially appeared aligned with this policy, signing agreements to build a local refinery under Project Jupiter. However, disagreements reportedly emerged over timelines, infrastructure responsibilities, and the level of state oversight. Sources say delays in power supply, transport infrastructure, and regulatory approvals undermined the project’s commercial viability within government timelines.
The company now maintains that shifting policy demands and regulatory interference made the project untenable, amounting to indirect expropriation.
Allegations of institutional corruption
The dispute has been further complicated by allegations of regulatory dysfunction within the mining bureaucracy. Reports have cited fake consents, conflicting administrative decisions, and internal errors at the MCO that allegedly weakened the legal basis of Jupiter Lithium’s licences. Nigerian authorities have not admitted to any wrongdoing, but such claims are expected to feature prominently in the arbitration.
Fallout for Nigeria’s mining ambitions
The arbitration has raised concerns about Nigeria’s ambition to position solid minerals as a key driver of economic diversification. Observers link the case to Nigeria’s absence from the 2025 Africa Down Under mining conference in Australia, a major platform for attracting global mining investment. With investors increasingly cautious about regulatory risk, the ICSID case has emerged as a warning signal.
For Nigeria, an unfavourable ruling could result in significant financial exposure and reputational damage. For Jupiter Lithium, the arbitration is seen as a final attempt to recover losses from a project once portrayed as pivotal to Nigeria’s participation in the global energy transition.
The case is now before ICSID, with Nigeria reportedly engaging international legal advisers to defend its position. As proceedings continue, the Kaduna lithium mine, once a symbol of opportunity, has become the focal point of a legal confrontation with implications beyond Nigeria’s borders.
