London gold body faces landmark trial over deaths of Tanzanian miners

A closely watched civil case opening at London’s High Court on Wednesday is putting the global gold supply chain under scrutiny, as families of two Tanzanian miners killed in 2019 seek to hold a London-based industry body responsible for allegedly failing to act on evidence of human rights abuses at the mine where the men died.

The case targets the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), one of the central institutions in the international precious-metals market. The families argue that the association should not have continued to recognise gold from Tanzania’s North Mara mine as responsibly sourced when allegations of serious abuses by security forces were already in the public domain.

The two miners, both 23 and married, died months apart after encounters involving Tanzanian security forces at the North Mara gold mine in northwestern Tanzania. Leigh Day, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, has not disclosed their identities to protect their families.

The first man was allegedly assaulted by Tanzanian police while security forces moved to disperse artisanal miners in July 2019. According to the plaintiffs’ account, he suffered a gunshot wound and subsequently died from blood loss.

The second miner died in December that year after police allegedly used live ammunition and tear gas while dispersing miners. Leigh Day says he was allegedly shot in the back.

The allegations have not been established by the court, and the six-week trial will examine the evidence and the LBMA’s responsibilities in relation to the gold supply chain.

At the centre of the dispute is the increasingly important concept of “responsible sourcing” — the attempt by the global commodities industry to ensure that minerals entering international markets are not linked to serious human-rights violations, armed conflict or other abuses.

The LBMA accredits gold and silver refiners against technical and responsible-sourcing standards. Refiners whose bars meet the required standards are eligible for the London wholesale bullion market, giving the association a significant role in determining which material can enter one of the world’s most important precious-metals trading systems.

The plaintiffs allege that this system failed in the case of North Mara.

Leigh Day argues that the LBMA was negligent when it renewed the accreditation of Indian refiner MMTC-PAMP, which processed gold originating from the Tanzanian mine. The law firm says there was already substantial public evidence pointing to alleged systemic human-rights abuses at North Mara.

The LBMA, however, says it became aware of the connection between MMTC-PAMP and North Mara in June 2019 and subsequently initiated a review. According to the association, that process resulted in improvements.

That difference is central to the case: whether the existence of a certification and monitoring system is sufficient, or whether an organisation that certifies responsible sourcing also has a legal duty to respond adequately when credible allegations emerge within the supply chain.

The implications could extend beyond the two families. Leigh Day said 30 other people have joined the lawsuit, although their claims have been placed on hold until the present trial is concluded.

The case therefore reaches beyond a single Tanzanian mine. It raises questions about how responsibility is distributed across a modern commodities chain in which a miner may work in Africa, the gold may be processed by a refinery in Asia, and the certification governing its entry into the international market may be controlled by an organisation based in London.

For the families of the two young miners, however, the issue remains more immediate. Their case seeks to establish whether the institutions that certify global gold as responsibly sourced can also be held accountable when alleged abuses occur at the beginning of that supply chain.