Bowmans was pleased to present a panel discussion on Day 2 of Johannesburg Arbitration Week (JAW). Titled ‘Leveraging Opportunities in Times of Uncertainty’, the panel discussed legislative modernisation, bilateral investment treaties and increased judicial support for enforcement.
Moderated by Clement Mkiva, the panellists (Gerhard Rudolph, Brian Mambosho, Jonathan Barnes, John Kawana and Akshav Mossuddee), examined Africa’s growing role as a credible and competitive centre for international arbitration.
They considered the drivers behind this momentum, including modernised legislation, stronger judicial support, improved enforcement, and increased practitioner expertise spurred on by the growing diversity of parties selecting African arbitral institutions and seats for their disputes. Africa’s complex history with international arbitration, particularly in the investment treaty context, was also acknowledged.
Highlights of the discussion, which touched on three main themes: legislative modernisation, judicial support and bilateral investment treaties (BITs).
Legislative modernisation
In Tanzania, a new Arbitration Act, which came into force in 2021, has significantly reshaped the country’s arbitration framework. Brian highlighted how the new regime introduces enhanced procedural efficiency, clear timelines at each stage of the arbitration process, and greater predictability in post-award procedures. Importantly, the Act explicitly limits court intervention, aligning Tanzania more closely with international best practice including a unified recognition and enforcement framework for both domestic and foreign arbitral awards, with grounds for refusal that mirror those of the New York Convention. While judicial cultural shifts are still underway, the legislative architecture has positioned Tanzania as an increasingly attractive arbitral seat.
While the Arbitration Act, 2000, domesticated the New York Convention in Zambia, this jurisdiction intends to update and improve its ADR framework though the proposed Alternative Dispute Resolution Bill (2025). John explained that the Bill seeks to repeal and replace the current Arbitration Act and modernise arbitration practice through improved provisions on various aspects including interim measures and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards (the latter provision retains the essential components of the New York Convention).
While the Bill is progressive, until adopted, there remains an opportunity to address emerging issues such as artificial intelligence (AI) and additional ADR mechanisms like conciliation and expert determination. The Lusaka International Arbitration Centre (LIAC), which was established in 2024, was highlighted as a success story. Supported by strong governmental backing, the LIAC has quickly become a credible regional institution with an active case docket, including both domestic and international arbitration matters. Bowmans is one of the Founding Partners of LIAC.
The arbitration framework in South Africa is well established, and some attention has shifted toward the responsible use of AI in arbitration. Recent AI guidelines highlight both the opportunities (efficiency, improved research, and language support) and risks (confidentiality, data security, bias, and due process). The consensus was clear, and as Jonathan aptly said: AI is here to stay; the focus must be on ethical, transparent, and responsible use that enhances, not replaces, human judgment.
Judicial support
Mauritius continues to strengthen its position as a leading African arbitration hub, with its International Arbitration Act, last amended in 2013, remaining robust and forward-looking. Akshav highlighted how a distinctive feature of the Mauritian system is the designation of a specialist bench of Supreme Court judges to hear arbitration-related matters, ensuring consistency, predictability, and judicial expertise. Mauritian courts have adopted a restrained, pro-enforcement approach, applying international public policy standards and reinforcing investor confidence.
BITs
South Africa’s withdrawal from traditional BITs is not an outlier but reflects a broader trend in Africa and the developing-world toward recalibrating investor–state dispute settlement in favour of greater regulatory sovereignty. However, Gerhard noted an emerging rebalancing, with regional instruments potentially filling the gap. Over the coming years, foreign investor protections are expected to converge around regional frameworks rather than uniform BITs, with practical implications for dispute strategy, risk assessment, and investment structuring.
Conclusion
The future of arbitration in Africa is bright. The recent developments on the continent affirm this. With ongoing legislative reform and institutional capacity building as well as technological adaptation and judicial engagement, the continent is steadily shaping an arbitration landscape that is modern, credible, and globally competitive.
As Clement observed, while African arbitration practitioners have actively invested in training and professional development in this rapidly evolving field, it can be an oversight to leave the judiciary behind. Ensuring the continued growth and legitimacy of arbitration in Africa requires practitioners to actively bring the judiciary along on this journey as the judiciary is the ultimate guardian and custodian of the global arbitral laws and norms that are being adopted and domesticated on the continent.
It is no longer a question of whether Africa states are viable arbitration destinations; in the near future, many African jurisdictions will stand firmly alongside established global hubs.
