Lawyers representing communities and civil society groups in Zambia have opened settlement talks with Sino-Metals, a Chinese-owned copper mining and processing company, over one of the country’s worst toxic spills, raising the possibility of an out-of-court resolution in multiple cases that could reshape corporate accountability in Africa.

On Wednesday, lawyers for Sino-Metals, a subsidiary of China Nonferrous Metal Mining Group, approached the legal representatives of affected residents and civil society organizations (CSOs) to explore a potential out-of-court settlement. 

Details remain unclear, and it is not yet known whether claimants will accept the offers that the company will make.

The move comes as the company faces a wave of lawsuits and compensation claims over the February collapse of a tailings dam that released toxic waste into water sources used by farming communities along Zambia’s copperbelt region.

Mounting Lawsuits

A letter of demand from Malisa & Partners Legal Practitioners, submitted last month, demanded $220 million in interim compensation to relocate 47 households living near the spill site, along with funds for medical testing, treatment, and livelihood restoration. The same letter sought $9.7 billion for a Victims and Environmental Rehabilitation Fund, intended to support long-term cleanup and healthcare.

A second claim filed by Malambo & Co. said it represented “several residents of Kalusale” and requested $200 million to establish an emergency fund for their clients.

Last week, a third lawsuit was filed on behalf of nearly 200 farmers. The claimants are seeking $80 billion to be placed in escrow as security for environmental remediation and full compensation, plus monthly relocation payments of 8,000 Zambian kwacha ($344).

If granted, these claims would represent the most significant damages ever awarded against a mining company for environmental harm, not only in Africa but globally. By comparison, Zambia’s gross domestic product stands at around $23 billion, making the $9.7 billion and $80 billion demand nearly four times the country’s annual output. 

The amounts sought are also unreasonably high, and it is unimaginable that the company would pay this amount. The largest award for environmental damage against a mining company was $23 billion settlement reached between the Government of Brazil and BHP Group, an Australian multinational mining and metals corporation, and Samarco, a joint venture of Brazilian mining giant Vale. 

The payment was also meant to compensate for human, environmental and infrastructure damage caused by the release of an immense amount of toxic mining waste into a major river in southeastern Minas Gerais state in 2015.

A Coalition Push

Behind the suits in Zambia is a coalition of CSOs, including Action for Nature, Conservation Advocates Zambia, and the Zambia Alliance of Women among others. The groups argue Sino-Metals has violated Zambia’s Environmental Management Act and Water Resources Management Act, as well as the “polluter pays” principle under international law. 

The principle of polluter pays is also recognised by the Zambian legal framework and requires an entity responsible for creating pollution to be held accountable for the costs of managing, preventing further damage, and cleaning up the pollution.

“Communities cannot survive on token payouts while children are sick and water is poisoned,” said Caesar Katebe of the Zambia Alliance of Women. “The costs of rebuilding lives and restoring the environment are far greater than what has been offered.”

Sino-Metals has acknowledged responsibility for the spill, issued a public apology, and provided some relief, including alternative water supplies and cash payments ranging from $17 to $2,000. But CSOs say those measures are inadequate

A Record of Weak Enforcement

Evidence from past cases involving Chinese miners in Zambia highlights a challenge of environmental governance and the enforcement of laws. In 2013, Zambia’s Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA) suspended operations at Non-Ferrous China Africa’s Southeast Ore Body along the copperbelt for failing to compensate and resettle affected families.

That same year, ZEMA also halted operations at Chambishi Copper Smelter, another Chinese project in the northern part of the country, for exceeding emissions limits, while in 2015, another Chinese Copper Mining project in Chingola in the Copperbelt province was suspended after pollution complaints.

In each of these cases, temporary suspensions and partial compensation followed, but few resulted in lasting remedies or judicial pronouncements  

The problem is not unique to Chinese firms. Even when African courts issue judgments against mining companies, implementation is patchy. This prompted some Zambian plaintiffs to pursue justice abroad.

In 2019, the UK Supreme Court allowed nearly 2,000 villagers from Zambia to sue London-listed mining company Vedanta Resources over pollution from its Konkola Copper Mines in Zambia. Nigerian claimants have also mounted similar suits against Shell in British and Dutch courts. These cross-border cases have opened new pathways for African communities when domestic courts fail to deliver.

But no community has yet held a Chinese mining company accountable in Chinese courts. For Zambians affected by Sino-Metals, domestic litigation remains the only realistic option.

Admission Without Adequate Action and the Zambian Government Stance

Sino-Metals, a subsidiary of the state-owned China Nonferrous Metal Mining Group, one of the world’s largest mining firms, admitted responsibility for the February collapse and issued a public apology. Zambian regulators ordered the company to suspend operations, provide alternative water supplies, and begin remediation. Some measures were implemented, but CSOs argue that they fall far short of addressing the true extent of the damage caused by the toxic spill.

The coalition’s letter of demand accuses Sino-Metals of violating Zambia’s Environmental Management Act and Water Resources Management Act, invoking the “polluter pays” principle under international law, which provides that a polluter should bear the costs of cleaning up the environment or any damage.

The Zambian government has aligned itself closely with the Chinese firm, dismissing an independent environmental impact assessment that found severe contamination. That position could complicate both negotiations and litigation.

The high stakes for these suits highlight Zambia’s delicate balancing act between protecting communities, enforcing environmental rules and regulations on one hand and sustaining relations with Beijing, a critical economic partner and creditor on the other.

Legal challenges against Chinese mining companies in Africa are rare, as most disputes are quietly resolved through regulatory negotiations. But the Sino-Metals case could mark a turning point.

If communities succeed in court, or even extract a substantial settlement, it could embolden civil society groups and communities across the region to adopt more aggressive legal strategies, rather than relying on regulators or governments hesitant to jeopardize Chinese investment.

The ripple effects could stretch beyond Zambia to other countries in the region where environmental groups in countries like Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea etc have witnessed similar complaints from communities impacted by Chinese mining projects but have been hesitant to approach domestic courts to seek remedies.

An Uncertain Outcome

For now, the outcome remains uncertain. The sums sought from the same cause of action are unlikely to be paid in full, and Zambia’s courts face structural limitations in enforcing judgments against powerful foreign firms. Still, the case already represents one of the most serious legal challenges faced by a Chinese mining company in Africa.

Whether resolved in court or through settlement, it will serve as a test of whether African communities can use their own legal systems to hold multinational corporations accountable for the environmental and human costs of investment.