Clients with ongoing or pending appeals under the old Mines and Minerals Development Act (“old Act”) should be aware that the enactment of the Minerals Regulation Commission Act (“new Act”) may affect the status of these appeals. While the new Act centralises decision-making authority, questions remain about the handling of appeals lodged under the repealed legislation, particularly those relating to ministerial decisions.

Changes to the Regulatory Framework

Under the old Act, administrative powers concerning the granting, renewal, and revocation of mining licences were exercised by the Mining Licensing Committee, the Director of Mining Cadastre, and the Minister. Aggrieved parties could appeal decisions of the Director to the Minister and, subsequently, to the Mines Appeal Tribunal.

In practice, the Tribunal remained inoperative for nearly a decade, leaving parties dissatisfied with ministerial decisions without a practical avenue for relief.

The new Act centralises administrative authority in the Minerals Regulation Commission. This changes how clients interact with regulators, potentially affecting, the timing of licence approvals or renewals, processes for licence revocation or amendment and strategies for navigating regulatory and compliance challenges.

In addition, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is now limited to appeals arising from Commission decisions. This raises important questions for clients with pending matters under the old Act:

• Do appeals lodged under the repealed Act remain valid?
• Does the Tribunal retain authority to determine these appeals?

Transitional Uncertainties

These changes create several uncertainties:

• The Tribunal’s jurisdiction over past ministerial decisions is unclear
• The availability of appellate review for affected parties is uncertain
• Judicial intervention may be required to resolve outstanding appeals

Several approaches could address these challenges:

1. Legislative Clarification
   Parliament could introduce transitional provisions specifying how the new Act applies to pending appeals and past ministerial decisions.
2. Revisiting the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction
   The Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction “as prescribed,” leaving scope for supplementary legislation to extend its authority to appeals arising under the old Act.
3. Alternative Appeal Mechanisms
   Government could establish an ad hoc tribunal or specialised court to hear outstanding appeals.
4. High Court Intervention
   Clients may approach the High Court, relying on its unlimited original jurisdiction to seek clarity and relief where statutory appellate mechanisms are unclear or unavailable.

As Zambia implements its new regulatory framework, it is important that the Tribunal and the Commission operate effectively, with adequate staffing, resources, and structures in place. The efficient functioning of these regulatory bodies is essential for maintaining investor confidence, upholding the rule of law, and supporting a transparent and well-governed mining sector.

Conclusion

The transitional issues under the Minerals Regulation Commission Act highlight the importance of clear legislative drafting and well-defined transitional provisions. Prompt clarification will help safeguard parties’ rights, ensure continuity in the appeals process, and support the smooth implementation of the new regulatory framework.

Until legislative guidance is provided, affected parties may need to seek judicial intervention to determine the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the status of pending appeals. Addressing these matters proactively will strengthen governance and the rule of law in Zambia’s mining sector.

If you require any further information or clarification on how this may impact you, please do not hesitate to contact our team.