KEY POINTS
- A business proposal for US mineral access upset South Africa’s mines minister.
- The AU-backed critical minerals strategy excluded key stakeholders.
- Africa’s mineral wealth sparks debate over national versus foreign priorities.
A proposal by South Africa’s largest mining firm, Sibanye Stillwater Ltd., and other business leaders to open up access to Africa’s critical minerals for the U.S. has triggered political blowback. The country’s mining minister, Gwede Mantashe, has denounced the move as a unilateral business play that excluded key government departments.
The strategy was put forward just before a May 21 meeting between President Cyril Ramaphosa and Donald Trump, drawing fire from Mantashe, who said his ministry and the Minerals Council South Africa were left in the dark.
No buy-in for South Africa critical U.S minerals deal strategy
“I did talk to people who put it together,” Mantashe said. “They didn’t talk to us, but there can be nothing about mining without us.” The minister argued that any legitimate national strategy on critical minerals must include government input, not just industry perspectives.
Two sources familiar with the situation said Mantashe believed Sibanye was pushing an agenda that served its interests, not South Africa’s. But CEO Neal Froneman rejected the claim, saying the intention was to bridge relations with Washington and position South Africa as a strategic gateway into Africa’s vast mineral wealth.
Industry accuses government of poor collaboration
The clash underscores persistent friction between South Africa’s mining industry and the state. Business leaders have long complained about red tape, policy inconsistency, and exclusion from decision-making processes.
In May, the Minerals Council criticized the government’s new draft mining regulations for failing to incorporate stakeholder feedback. “Government routinely issues bills and amendments without involving or considering other stakeholders,” Froneman said.
Tensions escalated further when Mantashe objected to the proposal’s pro-US tone, including language resembling “Make Minerals Great Again.” Furthermore he declared that South Africa needs a cross-cutting strategy, “not one for the US.”
Debate over Africa’s mineral future widens
Mantashe’s department issued its own strategy the day before the Trump meeting, focusing on local priorities such as coal, iron ore, manganese, and platinum minerals abundant in South Africa. By contrast, the business proposal leaned toward copper, cobalt, and lithium, which are more prevalent in other African nations and vital to tech and green energy supply chains.
The U.S. has been aggressively pursuing critical mineral deals across the globe, including in Ukraine, Rwanda, and the DRC, as it seeks to reduce dependence on Chinese-controlled supply lines.
Froneman argued that Mantashe’s approach risked isolating South Africa from global capital. “The minister’s truculent style makes the country unattractive to foreign mining investors, especially those from the U.S.,” he said.
While it remains unclear if Ramaphosa and Trump discussed the matter directly, the controversy has laid bare a deeper struggle over how Africa manages and monetizes its mineral future.
