Well we'll soon see who's right I'm sure. But I don't see any negotiation in that letter.
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Thanks guys.
We still don't know the details . Is it just the North that's the issue ? Is it the whole f--king thing ?
I know what channel your on. DH
Samus
Top 20
Annulation du PE 13359 : le staff de DATHCOM réagit à la décision de Mme la ministre des Mines - L'info qui fait échos
L’annulation du Permis d’exploitation (PE) accordé en avril 2022 à la société minière DATHCOM, qui se propose de mettre en valeur le lithium de Manono, <a class="mh-excerpt-more"...econewsrdc.com
Cancellation of EP 13359: DATHCOM staff react to the decision of the Minister of Mines
February 15, 2023 TIGHANA MASIALA 0
Ms. Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, Minister of Mines
The cancellation of the Exploitation Permit (PE) granted in April 2022 to the mining company DATHCOM, which proposes to develop lithium in Manono, in the province of Tanganyika, has provoked a strong reaction from this company, since its HQ in Australia. It was Nigel Ferguson, presenting himself as the president of DATHCOM MINING SA, who was responsible for reframing the Minister of Mines, Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, pointing out serious irregularities in her decision. Here is the replica of DATHCOM. No comments.
To her Excellency the Minister of Mines of the DR Congo
Concerns: Acknowledgment of receipt of Ministerial Orders No. 00032/CAB.MIN/MINES/01/2023 of January 28, 2023 reporting that of April 07, 2022 taking note of the declaration of partial waiver of Exploration Permit No. 13359 by the company DATHCOM MINING SA and Ministerial Order n°00031/CAB.
MINES/MINES/ 01/2023 of January 28, 2023 relating to that of April 25, 2022 granting Exploitation Permit No. 13359 to the company DATHCOM MINING SA.
Excellence Madame la Ministre,
I.INTRODUCTION
II. THE FACT OF THE PRINCE AND THE POLITICAL DIMENSION OF YOUR DECISION
- The company DATHCOM MINING SA acknowledges receipt in a state of shock and surprise your two Irregular Ministerial Orders in form and in substance while it was waiting to be notified on the calculation of surface rights that the Cadastre was in the process of carrying out Mining.
- DATHCOM fiercely opposes your approach that violated the relevant provisions of the Congolese Minier Code, which it intends to demonstrate in the following lines.
III. ACQUIRED RIGHTS AND SURVIVAL OF THE GRANT DECISION NO. 00145/CAB.MINES/MINES/O1/2022 OF APRIL 25, 2022 GRANTING THE OPERATING PERMIT NO.133S9 TO THE COMPANY "DATHCOM MINING SA"
- We feel like we are the victim of a political decision whose real etherious motivations we do not know.
- Your two ministerial orders show that all these facts are constitutive of the "prince facts" because, without any legal basis and are not based on the Mining Code as amended in 2018:
4.1. The fact that you have responded to the request of the company "COMINIERE SA" which is not a holder of mining securities and therefore you create dangerous case law to receive the request from a shareholder whose acts are not allowed by the Mining Code but also whose status of Mr. Célestin KIBEYA is called into question because it is not appointed by "Presidential Ordinance" as required. Despite this irregularity, you nevertheless made these decisions that cannot survive in legal trade or produce its effects.
4.2. The fact that you have based your two orders on issues of "conflicts between shareholders" that are not conflicts of your jurisdiction and therefore unknown reasons in the Congolese Mining Code as known to date.
IV. PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
- The Democratic Republic of the Congo through its constitution dated February 18, 2006 as amended by Law No. 111/O02 of 20 January 2011 is a rule of law and therefore, your Excellency is subject to its own laws.
- One of the provisions you ignored in the two decrees is that the person you seized, in this case Mr. Célestin KIBEYA, had to have a "quality" based on the Presidential Ordinance appointing him out of respect for the principle of formal parallelism in place of Mr. Athanase Mwamba who has remained to date Director General ai In the eyes of the law. This reason makes your two orders irregular in the form.
- The reasons raised, in particular the conflicts between shareholders, are purely and simply unknown by the Mining Code, being a special law that derogates from common rights and requires strict application, the only reasons for which are in particular the "non-payment of surface rights" and "non-start of work", which is not the case here and allows us to affirm that the grant decision remains intact in the
- To return to the State, it is important to remember that your aforementioned Decrees violate the Mining Code, which takes care of framing the "the report of mining rights". To this end, Article 48b in fine provides that mining and/or career rights may be withdrawn or reported, without retroactive effect, by the granting authority in the event of illegality at the time of granting, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or failing that, within three months of the date of knowledge of its existence, either at the request of an
- It follows from this provision that the only hypothesis of "report of mining rights or careers enshrined in law is illegality at the time of granting", in this case, the rights may be reported either at the request of a third party injured or on your initiative, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or after the date of knowledge of the existence of the grant decision
- You will find that your grant decision was taken on April 25, 2022 and three months after July 25, 2022 and in case of "illegality at the time of grant". The decisive acts that are the "cadastral notices", "environmental opinion", "technical opinion" and "compliance notices" remain valid to date and have never been declared illegal and no reason or illegal character in the granting procedure is the responsibility of your two decrees and DATHCOM has never been notified of any case of illegality at the grant.And you cannot ignore that the withdrawal of regular individual
- This is quite abnormal, and legally unsustainable, that your jurisdiction can leave unexecuted an act that it has enacted and whose legality is not in the shadow of any doubt because it is over the three favorable opinions, and that you can begin on a painful and perilous approach to try to assess, a posteriori, the legality of your decision, especially since
- In addition, the simple basic rules have not been respected, in particular the rights of the defense and your Excellency did not even deign to call the applicant to hear her version of the facts and the Mining Code has established the principle that decisions must be reasoned and so today nor the reasons purely under company law raised by Mr. Célestin KIBEYA (whose personal reasons remain obscure)
- Moreover, your two decrees contradicted each other technically, so the decree 00032 on the renunciation should precede that of the grant decision 00031 thus making these decisions technically difficult to execute because we cannot report the grant decision and therefore there is no longer a grant or permit decision and therefore the decree 00032 reporting the one on the renunciation cannot come chronologically after.
Edit: The numbering is incorrect compared to the original article - refer to the link for the correct numbering
- This is worth recourse for justice to be done, it is up to you to choose the path of reason within the framework of the right business climate and to leave it to the appropriate authorities, which are within the reach of COMINIERE, to be able to implement their legal skills to resolve this conflict between DATHCOM shareholders rather than paralyzing this great historical project that feeds the hope
Hoping that this will receive your special attention, please accept, Excellency the expression of our best regards.
For DATHCOM MINING SA
Wow that's fucked up!Have you not seen the letter from Zijin? It was almost blackmailing MoM and MoP and they are supposedly chums. Maybe that’s how you get things done in the DRC. Zijin is a big bully and we need to reconfirm our position from a legal prospective.
This letter is not only for the MoM, but also for our deterrents to see that we are not giving up what is rightfully ours without a legal fight. If you want Manono, then you better pull out your cheque book and pay a fair price.
One thing for sure MoM is not a friend of ours, and it’s time for Felix to bring on the reshuffle. Imminently!
Spikerama
Regular
Annulation du PE 13359 : le staff de DATHCOM réagit à la décision de Mme la ministre des Mines - L'info qui fait échos
L’annulation du Permis d’exploitation (PE) accordé en avril 2022 à la société minière DATHCOM, qui se propose de mettre en valeur le lithium de Manono, <a class="mh-excerpt-more"...
Cancellation of EP 13359: DATHCOM staff react to the decision of the Minister of Mines
February 15, 2023 TIGHANA MASIALA 0
Ms. Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, Minister of Mines
The cancellation of the Exploitation Permit (PE) granted in April 2022 to the mining company DATHCOM, which proposes to develop lithium in Manono, in the province of Tanganyika, has provoked a strong reaction from this company, since its HQ in Australia. It was Nigel Ferguson, presenting himself as the president of DATHCOM MINING SA, who was responsible for reframing the Minister of Mines, Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, pointing out serious irregularities in her decision. Here is the replica of DATHCOM. No comments.
To her Excellency the Minister of Mines of the DR Congo
Concerns: Acknowledgment of receipt of Ministerial Orders No. 00032/CAB.MIN/MINES/01/2023 of January 28, 2023 reporting that of April 07, 2022 taking note of the declaration of partial waiver of Exploration Permit No. 13359 by the company DATHCOM MINING SA and Ministerial Order n°00031/CAB.
MINES/MINES/ 01/2023 of January 28, 2023 relating to that of April 25, 2022 granting Exploitation Permit No. 13359 to the company DATHCOM MINING SA.
Excellence Madame la Ministre,
I.INTRODUCTION
II. THE FACT OF THE PRINCE AND THE POLITICAL DIMENSION OF YOUR DECISION
- The company DATHCOM MINING SA acknowledges receipt in a state of shock and surprise your two Irregular Ministerial Orders in form and in substance while it was waiting to be notified on the calculation of surface rights that the Cadastre was in the process of carrying out Mining.
- DATHCOM fiercely opposes your approach that violated the relevant provisions of the Congolese Minier Code, which it intends to demonstrate in the following lines.
III. ACQUIRED RIGHTS AND SURVIVAL OF THE GRANT DECISION NO. 00145/CAB.MINES/MINES/O1/2022 OF APRIL 25, 2022 GRANTING THE OPERATING PERMIT NO.133S9 TO THE COMPANY "DATHCOM MINING SA"
- We feel like we are the victim of a political decision whose real etherious motivations we do not know.
- Your two ministerial orders show that all these facts are constitutive of the "prince facts" because, without any legal basis and are not based on the Mining Code as amended in 2018:
4.1. The fact that you have responded to the request of the company "COMINIERE SA" which is not a holder of mining securities and therefore you create dangerous case law to receive the request from a shareholder whose acts are not allowed by the Mining Code but also whose status of Mr. Célestin KIBEYA is called into question because it is not appointed by "Presidential Ordinance" as required. Despite this irregularity, you nevertheless made these decisions that cannot survive in legal trade or produce its effects.
4.2. The fact that you have based your two orders on issues of "conflicts between shareholders" that are not conflicts of your jurisdiction and therefore unknown reasons in the Congolese Mining Code as known to date.
IV. PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
- The Democratic Republic of the Congo through its constitution dated February 18, 2006 as amended by Law No. 111/O02 of 20 January 2011 is a rule of law and therefore, your Excellency is subject to its own laws.
- One of the provisions you ignored in the two decrees is that the person you seized, in this case Mr. Célestin KIBEYA, had to have a "quality" based on the Presidential Ordinance appointing him out of respect for the principle of formal parallelism in place of Mr. Athanase Mwamba who has remained to date Director General ai In the eyes of the law. This reason makes your two orders irregular in the form.
- The reasons raised, in particular the conflicts between shareholders, are purely and simply unknown by the Mining Code, being a special law that derogates from common rights and requires strict application, the only reasons for which are in particular the "non-payment of surface rights" and "non-start of work", which is not the case here and allows us to affirm that the grant decision remains intact in the
- To return to the State, it is important to remember that your aforementioned Decrees violate the Mining Code, which takes care of framing the "the report of mining rights". To this end, Article 48b in fine provides that mining and/or career rights may be withdrawn or reported, without retroactive effect, by the granting authority in the event of illegality at the time of granting, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or failing that, within three months of the date of knowledge of its existence, either at the request of an
- It follows from this provision that the only hypothesis of "report of mining rights or careers enshrined in law is illegality at the time of granting", in this case, the rights may be reported either at the request of a third party injured or on your initiative, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or after the date of knowledge of the existence of the grant decision
- You will find that your grant decision was taken on April 25, 2022 and three months after July 25, 2022 and in case of "illegality at the time of grant". The decisive acts that are the "cadastral notices", "environmental opinion", "technical opinion" and "compliance notices" remain valid to date and have never been declared illegal and no reason or illegal character in the granting procedure is the responsibility of your two decrees and DATHCOM has never been notified of any case of illegality at the grant.And you cannot ignore that the withdrawal of regular individual
- This is quite abnormal, and legally unsustainable, that your jurisdiction can leave unexecuted an act that it has enacted and whose legality is not in the shadow of any doubt because it is over the three favorable opinions, and that you can begin on a painful and perilous approach to try to assess, a posteriori, the legality of your decision, especially since
- In addition, the simple basic rules have not been respected, in particular the rights of the defense and your Excellency did not even deign to call the applicant to hear her version of the facts and the Mining Code has established the principle that decisions must be reasoned and so today nor the reasons purely under company law raised by Mr. Célestin KIBEYA (whose personal reasons remain obscure)
- Moreover, your two decrees contradicted each other technically, so the decree 00032 on the renunciation should precede that of the grant decision 00031 thus making these decisions technically difficult to execute because we cannot report the grant decision and therefore there is no longer a grant or permit decision and therefore the decree 00032 reporting the one on the renunciation cannot come chronologically after.
Edit: The numbering is incorrect compared to the original article - refer to the link for the correct numbering
- This is worth recourse for justice to be done, it is up to you to choose the path of reason within the framework of the right business climate and to leave it to the appropriate authorities, which are within the reach of COMINIERE, to be able to implement their legal skills to resolve this conflict between DATHCOM shareholders rather than paralyzing this great historical project that feeds the hope
Hoping that this will receive your special attention, please accept, Excellency the expression of our best regards.
For DATHCOM MINING SA
So first question that springs to mind is, where did this come from? And why is it in the press before shareholders have been made aware of it?
Which leads to the second question. Is it real?
I think we need to get affirmation from the company pronto because if it is real, this changes things. Significantly.
For everyone.
Be fucked if I know. But negotiations will be quite hard now ( if its real) imo
"IF" they are going to f--k us we have to go hard. Start legal action immediately and shout it to the World .
mouseflying
Regular
Anyone in Perth? Please confirm this in avz’s office tmr?
If this article is real, we will be in legal battle for years….
Chilla
Regular
This letter is seeking to set out and advise Dathcom compliance with legal basis of the mining laws and how the decrees issued by MoM do not comply with the established laws. It’s Dathcom return warning shot to MoM stating we comply with the established laws of the country and we are surprised the MoM has deviated from the constitution and mining laws. Shows to MoM that Dathcom are confident and steadfast in their position imo.
Winenut
Go AVZ!
Eloquently and eruditely stated Chilla
Sammy_da_Smile
Regular
@9cardomaha hey mate, don't spose you can acquire the letter copy of this? I'd be interested to see a date
Is any of it untrue? No? Then why not send it? And make it public.
We do things by the rules, and transparently. They have not been. That is what this letter is about pointing out.
To everyone crying "oh she's going to be so offended, that letter was so harsh, now she won't like us":
You really think she's so petty? or that her motivations are so fickle as to be swayed by tone of the letter?
Her actions will be motivated by 2 things:
- The size of the snacks
- The likelihood and severity of any potential repercussions for corrupt activities.
We have no carrot we can offer her, regardless of how amicable our correspondence.
The point of the letter is to make it clear that dodginess:
- is being documented,
- is being transparently communicated
- will be acted on.
EDIT: what @Chilla said.
Look at Zijin's offer to Cominere. They are very aggressive and not afraid of offending anyone (including the corrupted MOP).
We were fked for 9 months already. Nothing to lose. So why so chicken to write the right thing and make it public? IMO, this should be done 9 months ago.
We were fked for 9 months already. Nothing to lose. So why so chicken to write the right thing and make it public? IMO, this should be done 9 months ago.
Carlos Danger
Top 20
Baaaaaaaaaaa
Annulation du PE 13359 : le staff de DATHCOM réagit à la décision de Mme la ministre des Mines - L'info qui fait échos
L’annulation du Permis d’exploitation (PE) accordé en avril 2022 à la société minière DATHCOM, qui se propose de mettre en valeur le lithium de Manono, <a class="mh-excerpt-more"...
Cancellation of EP 13359: DATHCOM staff react to the decision of the Minister of Mines
February 15, 2023 TIGHANA MASIALA 0
Ms. Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, Minister of Mines
The cancellation of the Exploitation Permit (PE) granted in April 2022 to the mining company DATHCOM, which proposes to develop lithium in Manono, in the province of Tanganyika, has provoked a strong reaction from this company, since its HQ in Australia. It was Nigel Ferguson, presenting himself as the president of DATHCOM MINING SA, who was responsible for reframing the Minister of Mines, Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, pointing out serious irregularities in her decision. Here is the replica of DATHCOM. No comments.
To her Excellency the Minister of Mines of the DR Congo
Concerns: Acknowledgment of receipt of Ministerial Orders No. 00032/CAB.MIN/MINES/01/2023 of January 28, 2023 reporting that of April 07, 2022 taking note of the declaration of partial waiver of Exploration Permit No. 13359 by the company DATHCOM MINING SA and Ministerial Order n°00031/CAB.
MINES/MINES/ 01/2023 of January 28, 2023 relating to that of April 25, 2022 granting Exploitation Permit No. 13359 to the company DATHCOM MINING SA.
Excellence Madame la Ministre,
I.INTRODUCTION
II. THE FACT OF THE PRINCE AND THE POLITICAL DIMENSION OF YOUR DECISION
- The company DATHCOM MINING SA acknowledges receipt in a state of shock and surprise your two Irregular Ministerial Orders in form and in substance while it was waiting to be notified on the calculation of surface rights that the Cadastre was in the process of carrying out Mining.
- DATHCOM fiercely opposes your approach that violated the relevant provisions of the Congolese Minier Code, which it intends to demonstrate in the following lines.
III. ACQUIRED RIGHTS AND SURVIVAL OF THE GRANT DECISION NO. 00145/CAB.MINES/MINES/O1/2022 OF APRIL 25, 2022 GRANTING THE OPERATING PERMIT NO.133S9 TO THE COMPANY "DATHCOM MINING SA"
- We feel like we are the victim of a political decision whose real etherious motivations we do not know.
- Your two ministerial orders show that all these facts are constitutive of the "prince facts" because, without any legal basis and are not based on the Mining Code as amended in 2018:
4.1. The fact that you have responded to the request of the company "COMINIERE SA" which is not a holder of mining securities and therefore you create dangerous case law to receive the request from a shareholder whose acts are not allowed by the Mining Code but also whose status of Mr. Célestin KIBEYA is called into question because it is not appointed by "Presidential Ordinance" as required. Despite this irregularity, you nevertheless made these decisions that cannot survive in legal trade or produce its effects.
4.2. The fact that you have based your two orders on issues of "conflicts between shareholders" that are not conflicts of your jurisdiction and therefore unknown reasons in the Congolese Mining Code as known to date.
IV. PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
- The Democratic Republic of the Congo through its constitution dated February 18, 2006 as amended by Law No. 111/O02 of 20 January 2011 is a rule of law and therefore, your Excellency is subject to its own laws.
- One of the provisions you ignored in the two decrees is that the person you seized, in this case Mr. Célestin KIBEYA, had to have a "quality" based on the Presidential Ordinance appointing him out of respect for the principle of formal parallelism in place of Mr. Athanase Mwamba who has remained to date Director General ai In the eyes of the law. This reason makes your two orders irregular in the form.
- The reasons raised, in particular the conflicts between shareholders, are purely and simply unknown by the Mining Code, being a special law that derogates from common rights and requires strict application, the only reasons for which are in particular the "non-payment of surface rights" and "non-start of work", which is not the case here and allows us to affirm that the grant decision remains intact in the
- To return to the State, it is important to remember that your aforementioned Decrees violate the Mining Code, which takes care of framing the "the report of mining rights". To this end, Article 48b in fine provides that mining and/or career rights may be withdrawn or reported, without retroactive effect, by the granting authority in the event of illegality at the time of granting, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or failing that, within three months of the date of knowledge of its existence, either at the request of an
- It follows from this provision that the only hypothesis of "report of mining rights or careers enshrined in law is illegality at the time of granting", in this case, the rights may be reported either at the request of a third party injured or on your initiative, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or after the date of knowledge of the existence of the grant decision
- You will find that your grant decision was taken on April 25, 2022 and three months after July 25, 2022 and in case of "illegality at the time of grant". The decisive acts that are the "cadastral notices", "environmental opinion", "technical opinion" and "compliance notices" remain valid to date and have never been declared illegal and no reason or illegal character in the granting procedure is the responsibility of your two decrees and DATHCOM has never been notified of any case of illegality at the grant.And you cannot ignore that the withdrawal of regular individual
- This is quite abnormal, and legally unsustainable, that your jurisdiction can leave unexecuted an act that it has enacted and whose legality is not in the shadow of any doubt because it is over the three favorable opinions, and that you can begin on a painful and perilous approach to try to assess, a posteriori, the legality of your decision, especially since
- In addition, the simple basic rules have not been respected, in particular the rights of the defense and your Excellency did not even deign to call the applicant to hear her version of the facts and the Mining Code has established the principle that decisions must be reasoned and so today nor the reasons purely under company law raised by Mr. Célestin KIBEYA (whose personal reasons remain obscure)
- Moreover, your two decrees contradicted each other technically, so the decree 00032 on the renunciation should precede that of the grant decision 00031 thus making these decisions technically difficult to execute because we cannot report the grant decision and therefore there is no longer a grant or permit decision and therefore the decree 00032 reporting the one on the renunciation cannot come chronologically after.
Edit: The numbering is incorrect compared to the original article - refer to the link for the correct numbering
- This is worth recourse for justice to be done, it is up to you to choose the path of reason within the framework of the right business climate and to leave it to the appropriate authorities, which are within the reach of COMINIERE, to be able to implement their legal skills to resolve this conflict between DATHCOM shareholders rather than paralyzing this great historical project that feeds the hope
Hoping that this will receive your special attention, please accept, Excellency the expression of our best regards.
For DATHCOM MINING SA
Samus
Top 20
The cancellation of PE13359 is NULL! According to #DATHCOM and @AvzMinerals, my decision of the minister, @anskalambayi is ILLEGAL since stealing the mining code. CONFLICTS BETWEEN SHAREHOLDERS IS NOT A COMPETENCE OF @MinMinesRDC
1/3 #MANONO #LITHIUM Did Minister Kalambayi break the law with the cancellation of Dathcom's PE13359? Yes, the Halt is illegal according to Datcom. #DATHCOM opposes the Decision of the Minister of Mines, @anskalambayi, which according to the JV violates the Mining Code amended in 2018
2/3 and considers the Minister's decision as a political position. The dispute between Dathcom shareholders is not within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Mines. Céléstin Kabeya de la Cominiere who would be the basis of the accusations against Dathcom, is not yet CEO of CAMI,
3/3 because was not appointed by presidential order to replace Athanase Mwamba.
Sparrowhawk12
Regular
Maybe this is the next chess move in Plan B negotiations ... getting a better TO price? Looks like FT's unwillingness to lead or lack of real political power will piss everyone off, including the international investment community. Needing a miracle, Sparrowhawk.
Mr Inappropriate
Regular
Agree.
- AVZ has followed the law (esp. the Mining Code) to the letter.
- The DRC officials have eschewed the rule of law in favour of personal gain.
- Having given up any personal principles, and having acted outside of their delegated authority, laws and regulations, this (or any letter) is unlikely to jolt them back into a moral and rules-based stance.
- The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Felix has walked by and, by dint of inaction, is a-okay with corruption.
- The bases are now loaded by the corrupt ones.
- ICC. I don’t see local courts being trusted to handle such cases.
- Significant concessions by AVZ to corrupt actors/companies.
- Total loss of 13359. In which case refer option 1.
Mr Inappropriate
Regular
Similar threads
