The families of two Tanzanian artisanal miners will ask the High Court in London on Wednesday, October 7, to hold the London Bullion Market Association liable for allegedly certifying gold connected to the North Mara mine as responsibly sourced despite reports of serious abuse.
The claimants, whose identities are protected by a court order, are the families of two 23-year-old men who died in separate incidents at the mine in July and December 2019 while prospecting for gold.
They allege that Tanzanian police officers, private security guards or both were responsible; the allegations could not be verified independently. The trial is scheduled to run for six weeks. It is the first merits hearing in a case filed in December 2022 against the industry body, not the mine operator or police force.
At issue is the LBMA’s Good Delivery List, a standard that gives accredited refiners access to the London over-the-counter bullion market. Under the association’s Responsible Sourcing Programme, listed refiners must use a due-diligence system designed to address risks including money laundering, conflict and human-rights abuse, supported by annual independent assurance.
The families’ case concerns MMTC-PAMP, an India-based refiner that sourced gold from North Mara in 2019. Their lawyers allege the LBMA negligently continued its accreditation despite reports of killings, injuries and other abuses linked to mine security, and should have delisted the refiner.
READ MORE: Barrick Settles UK Legal Claims Alleging Deaths, Injuries at North Mara Gold Mine
They will argue that delisting would have put commercial pressure on the refiner and mine to stop the alleged abuses, and that the LBMA owed affected people a duty of care. They also allege conflicts of interest involving LBMA board and committee members; allegations that are yet to be determined by a court.
North Mara is majority-owned by Barrick Mining Corporation, which says neither it nor the mine operator controls the Tanzanian Police Force and denies responsibility for alleged police conduct around the mine.
The LBMA has publicly responded, saying it denies the claim in full. It says it is a not-for-profit association without regulatory powers and does not control North Mara, MMTC-PAMP, the relevant auditor or the Tanzanian police.
It says its programme accredits refiners’ management systems, not mines or individual consignments. The LBMA says it opened an incident review after learning of the North Mara connection, relied on independent assurance and required an improvement programme.
The association disputes duty, breach and causation. It says holding industry programmes liable for organisations they do not control could weaken OECD-aligned responsible-sourcing schemes.
READ MORE: Acacia Spent Billions Bribing Tanzania’s Govt Officials for Years, E-mails Show
The case has a procedural history but no previous decision on liability. LBMA sought in 2023 to have the case heard in Tanzania, then withdrew that jurisdiction challenge in June 2024, allowing the English proceedings to continue.
The case tests whether a body that sets and polices a voluntary responsible-sourcing standard can owe a legal duty to people allegedly harmed upstream in a supply chain.
One legal analysis has said that a successful claim could set a precedent for certification schemes and businesses that rely on them, while a decision for LBMA would clarify a certifier’s legal limits.
For the claimants, Good Delivery status was commercially central because it gave MMTC-PAMP access to a benchmark used by refiners, banks and traders. LBMA, however, says its standards are intended to create leverage and risk mitigation, not guarantee against harm at a mine.
A further 30 Tanzanians joined related proceedings in July, alleging additional killings, injuries and torture. Those claims are stayed pending the outcome of the original trial.
The court will hear evidence and legal argument on whether the LBMA had the claimed duty of care, whether its response complied with its rules, and whether any alleged failure caused the deaths. Neither the allegations against the LBMA nor its defence have yet been tested at trial.
