ICSID Dismisses Niger’s Bid to Remove Arbitrator in Orano–Cominak Dispute.
Abuja / Paris — 14 November 2025
The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has rejected the request by the Republic of Niger (Niger) to disqualify an arbitrator appointed in the ongoing dispute with the French mining-and-nuclear-materials company Orano (formerly AREVA) over its investments in the uranium-mining venture Compagnie Minière d’Akouta (COMINAK). The decision marks a procedural defeat for Niger and an important development in the high-stakes arbitration (ICSID Case No ARB/25/8) between the two parties.
Background to the dispute
Orano holds a majority interest in COMINAK (and also in its partner mine Société des mines de l’Aïr (SOMAÏR)) in northern Niger. Together with Niger’s state-mining asset company SOPAMIN, they have operated uranium production in the region for decades.
In December 2024 Orano acknowledged that it had lost operational control of SOMAÏR after Nigerien authorities intervened, and shortly afterwards Orano filed arbitration with ICSID in January 2025.
Among the many issues in play: the suppression of Of-take rights, restrictions on sales of uranium produced, changes to mining licences, and the broader political shift in Niger towards asserting state control of extractive activity.
The bid to remove the arbitrator
Niger had formally moved to challenge the impartiality of an arbitrator selected in the Orano-Niger proceedings, arguing conflict of interest or bias in favour of Orano. According to legal commentators, the motion was denied on 27 August 2025.
The ICSID tribunal’s rejection of Niger’s bid to remove the arbitrator thus stands as a signal that the arbitrator selection will remain unchanged and the proceedings will proceed in their current composition.
What the decision means
For Orano – The rejection of Niger’s challenge strengthens Orano’s procedural position in the arbitration. It avoids what would have been a potential delay and uncertainty arising from arbitrator substitution.
For Niger – The decision is a setback. Niger’s strategy to tilt the arbitration dynamics by seeking a different arbitrator has been unsuccessful. The government may now face greater pressure to defend its substantive positions in the tribunal rather than rely on procedural tactics.
For the mining-investment community – This decision underscores how investor-state arbitration under ICSID treats arbitrator-challenge motions: such motions are difficult to sustain unless strong proof of lack of independence is shown. The case reiterates that once an arbitrator is appointed, removing or substituting them can be a high hurdle.
Timing and broader context – The decision comes at a moment when Niger has been asserting more national control over its uranium resources, including moves to restrict exports and to re-negotiate or cancel mining licences. Orano’s filings and ICSID’s decisions are occurring amid this shifting political landscape.
Next steps & implications
With the tribunal’s composition confirmed, the arbitration between Orano and Niger will proceed to the merits phase. Key issues likely to be addressed include:
Whether Niger breached investment protections (under treaty or agreement) by interfering with Orano’s rights at SOMAÏR / COMINAK;
Whether Orano is entitled to compensation for loss of operational control, halted exports or withheld uranium production;
The quantum of any damages or relief to which Orano may be entitled;
Niger’s counters—such as arguments of sovereign regulatory power, changes of government policy, or compliance with local law.
For Niger the immediate implication is that its leverage via procedural tactics is diminished and it must engage substantively. For Orano, the confirmation of the arbitrator means fewer variables to navigate and greater clarity in the path ahead.
Broader significance
This case sits at the nexus of extractive-industry investment, geopolitical change in West Africa and investor-state arbitrations. Niger, which produces one of the world’s larger proportions of uranium, has in recent years reasserted state-control over mining activities and re-examined foreign-investor partnerships. The Orano arbitration is a litmus test for how such disputes will play out under ICSID in a context of resource nationalism.
From the global finance/investment perspective, it sends a message that while states remain free to revisit or reform mining frameworks, doing so may trigger significant liability and that procedural defences such as arbitrator challenges may rarely succeed.
Conclusion
The ICSID tribunal’s dismissal of Niger’s bid to remove the arbitrator in the Orano-Niger arbitration is both procedurally and symbolically important. It clears a path for the substantive arbitration to move ahead in its current format, placing the focus squarely on the underlying merits of the dispute. For Niger this marks the end of a procedural gambit; for Orano it represents a partial procedural victory; and for the wider mining-investment world it re-emphasises the stability of ICSID arbitration processes even in politically charged resource-disputes.
