Building trust between operators and governments in Africa

In sectors such as mining, energy, and infrastructure, the relationship between operators and governments is central to long-term performance. This is particularly true across many African markets, where commercial outcomes are shaped not only by contractual frameworks, but by evolving political, institutional, and economic dynamics. Trust is often referenced in this context—but less often unpacked.

For operators on the ground, this is not an abstract issue. Misalignment between companies and governments is one of the most common reasons projects stall, timelines slip, and value is lost.

In practice, it is neither fixed nor binary. It is built, tested, and sometimes eroded over time—shaped by how both sides interpret value, risk, and intent. At  Basirat Advisory, our experience suggests that breakdowns in trust are rarely the result of a single issue. More often, they emerge gradually—through misalignment, incomplete understanding, or shifts in context that are not fully recognised on either side.

Understanding Where Tensions Emerge

Even in well-structured investments, a number of recurring dynamics tend to surface over time:

• Governments may come to question whether the distribution of value remains equitable—particularly as projects mature or commodity prices rise

• Operators may perceive increasing uncertainty around regulatory stability or political positioning

• Engagement can become concentrated among a limited set of actors, reducing visibility across the broader system

• Political or institutional change can disrupt established relationships and assumptions

These dynamics are not unusual. They reflect the reality that priorities, constraints, and perspectives evolve—often asymmetrically.

Where this becomes most visible is during implementation. These dynamics tend to surface not at the point of entry, but once projects are underway and expectations are tested against delivery realities.

In practice, this often manifests as:

• delays in approvals or permitting processes

• evolving or less clearly defined expectations around local content or broader economic contribution

• divergence between formal agreements and informal expectations

• reduced alignment or support at critical moments in the project lifecycle

These issues are rarely explicit at the outset, but they become central to performance over time.

Towards More Resilient Relationships

There is no single model for building trust, and approaches that work in one context may not translate directly to another. That said, certain practices appear to support more stable and constructive relationships over time. These are less about formal frameworks, and more about how operators engage in practice.

Engaging the System, Not Just the Centre

Engagement is often concentrated at the level of central government—understandably so, given where formal authority sits. However, decision-making in practice is typically more distributed. Building a broader base of relationships—across ministries, regulators, and sub-national actors—can provide a more accurate understanding of how positions are formed and how decisions evolve. It also reduces reliance on a narrow set of counterparts, which can be particularly important in periods of transition.

Maintaining Political Neutrality

In competitive political environments, perceptions matter as much as actions. Operators can, at times, become associated—formally or informally—with particular individuals or political groupings. While this may offer short-term alignment, it can create longer-term exposure. A more resilient position is to be seen as operating independently of political cycles, with relationships that extend across institutional and political boundaries.

Creating Shared Understanding of Project Economics

A recurring source of tension lies in differing interpretations of value. From an operator perspective, project economics are shaped by capital intensity, financing structures, operational risk, and commodity price volatility. From a government perspective, visibility into these factors may be limited, particularly over time. Where this gap persists, periods of strong performance can be interpreted as evidence of imbalance, regardless of underlying realities. Operators who invest in building a shared understanding of how value is created—and how it fluctuates—are often better positioned to navigate these moments. This is less about disclosure in a formal sense, and more about sustained, practical engagement around how the project functions economically.

Sustaining Engagement Beyond Inflection Points

Engagement is often most intense during moments of negotiation, approval, or dispute. Outside of these periods, interaction can become more limited. Over time, this can lead to a divergence in understanding—particularly as conditions change. More consistent engagement, including during periods of stability, can help maintain alignment and surface emerging issues earlier.

Anchoring Relationships Beyond Individuals

In many contexts, relationships are built around individuals rather than institutions. While often unavoidable, this can create fragility. Changes in leadership—political or administrative—can quickly alter the operating environment. Efforts to build relationships across multiple levels and functions can help provide

A System, Not a Single Lever

These elements are interconnected. One way to think about this is as a system rather than a set of discrete actions:

Weakness in one area often places pressure on others. Equally, progress tends to be cumulative rather than immediate.

What This Means for Operators

For companies operating in-country, this has several practical implications.

• Understanding government priorities is as important as understanding regulation. Formal frameworks matter, but outcomes are often shaped by underlying policy objectives and political incentives.

• Engagement needs to go beyond formal processes. Effective navigation requires understanding how decisions are made in practice, not just how they are supposed to be made.

• Expectations need to be actively managed over time. Alignment at the point of entry does not guarantee alignment during delivery, particularly in dynamic environments.

• Trust is built through delivery, not positioning. Credibility with government counterparts is shaped by consistency, responsiveness, and the ability to deliver on commitments.

A Final Reflection

It is important to recognise that trust does not eliminate tension. Governments will continue to balance fiscal, political, and social pressures. Operators will continue to manage commercial and operational risk. The objective is not to remove these dynamics, but to create a relationship that can absorb and navigate them.

Trust between operators and governments is often treated as a “soft” issue. In practice, it is a central determinant of whether projects move forward as planned, stall, or fail altogether. In complex environments, this often becomes a defining factor in whether value is ultimately realised.