Loulo-Gounkoto
Questions & Answers
Last updated: November 5, 2025
In response to questions from a variety of stakeholders, we have prepared the below responses to the most common questions we have received.
What steps is Barrick taking to secure the release of its personnel that Mali has detained?
Mali has baselessly kept four of our personnel in pre-trial detention since November 25, 2024. In other words, our colleagues are not found guilty of any crime. They are only kept in detention to ensure their presence at a future trial which remains to be scheduled.
Since November 2024, we have pursued, and will continue to pursue, every available route at our disposal to secure their release. This includes both seeking a negotiated solution, on which we have constantly engaged with the Government of Mali through all available channels (see below) and also all available legal avenues.
On September 9, 2025, after several unsuccessful applications, the Court issued rulings allowing the release of our 4 detained employees, conditional on the payment of bail set approximately USD 26 million each, totalling around USD 104 million. Unfortunately, the Public Prosecutor chose to appeal the decision, leaving the detainees in detention while the appeal is being processed. This appeal emphasizes further the glaring unfairness of the situation which amounts to holding Barrick personnel as economic hostages.
There are numerous and strong reasons why the continuing detention of these four men is factually baseless and legally unjustified.
First, the criminal charges brought against Barrick, our Malian subsidiaries and some of our employees relate to the holding and usage of offshore accounts, which Mali claims was unauthorized—a claim we strongly deny. None of the four employees currently in detention had anything to do with the opening, holding and usage of Somilo and Gounkoto’s offshore accounts. More importantly, even if the holding of those accounts was unauthorized, which is not the case, AND the detainees were directly responsible, which is not the case, there is no action that amounts to any form of violent act and there would be no reason to keep anyone in detention to protect the safety and life of Malian nationals.
Second, while Barrick’s personnel remain in detention, the Government representative previously in charge of overseeing repatriation of gold sales, who was actually in charge of controlling the offshore accounts, was released from detention after just three days.
Our people remain our first priority. The Government’s lawless use of its court system to hold our people hostage to obtain economic benefits must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
When was Barrick’s last engagement with the Malian government?
We can confirm we have repeatedly sought constructive engagement with the Malian government to find an amicable resolution, including through the signature of a Memorandum of Agreement. Our last official engagement dates back to August, 14 and 15, 2025 but regretfully no progress was made.
The Malian government has ignored our repeated attempts at constructive engagement, including our call for the partnership that will govern the future of the world-class Loulo-Gounkoto complex to be negotiated on the back of financial models and with the support of international advisors. They have also reneged repeatedly on agreements reached.
Given the Malian government’s refusal to engage in good-faith dialogue, we are fully pursuing our rights through the ICSID arbitration process provided for under our binding mining conventions. We believe we have a strong case on the merits given the Malian government actions and escalations. We will use every legal measure at our disposal to hold the State accountable for their unlawful actions, to protect our people, and to defend our investments.
What is the latest update of the ongoing ICSID arbitration process initiated by Barrick?
The ICSID arbitration process—initiated in December 2024 under the binding Mining Conventions between Barrick subsidiaries and the State of Mali—is fully underway. These Conventions clearly establish our legal rights and protections, and we are confident in our position.
On July 21, 2025, the Tribunal held its first session as well as a hearing on the request filed by Somilo and Gounkoto for provisional measures to prevent further escalation and to safeguard their rights under the Mining Conventions during the pendency of the arbitration. On October 29, 2025, the Tribunal issued a decision recommending provisional measures against Mali aimed at restoring Somilo’s and Gounkoto’s ability to operate the mines and, in particular, directing Mali not to support renewal of the provisional administrator’s mandate when it expires in December 2025, and to facilitate gold exports by engaging in the necessary authorization procedures. Other requested provisional measures, including the immediate release of our detained employees, were unfortunately rejected . This remains an interim decision and the arbitration will follow its course until substantive arguments are presented to the Tribunal and a final decision is rendered on the merits of the case.
Has the provisional administrator restarted operations or selling gold from the site?
On October 27, 2025, we obtained from the Malian Courts, a copy of the provisional administrator’s report on his management for the period June 17 to September 16, 2025. This report contains statements in relation to the status of the asset when he took over operational control which we strongly disagree with. In addition, it suggests that production has restarted and that he has removed from site a total of 1,567 kg of gold, of which 1,390 kg was sold.
We continue to be of the view that the restart of the operations or the sale of gold from the site is not only illegitimate but also ill advised. Illegitimate, because the provisional administrator’s authority is based on a legal decision that is flawed and also because there is no basis to deprive the rightful majority shareholder and operator from the right to operate if the export blockage, which was illegal in the first instance, is lifted. Ill advised, because such actions are undertaken without the essential skills, operational frameworks, systems, and expertise that Barrick provides, jeopardizing the safety of employees and the long-term viability and value of this world-class asset.
Barrick rejects the Malian government’s attempt to portray the imposition of provisional administration and the reopening of the Loulo-Gounkoto complex as a positive development. The Loulo-Gounkoto complex was fully operational, and operations were only suspended after the Malian government impermissibly blocked gold exports and then seizedthe existing gold inventory. Such claims amount to misleading the public, misdirection and deflecting responsibility.
Does Barrick believe Loulo-Gounkoto can be successfully operated by the provisional administrator?
To be clear, we do not believe the provisional administrator and his advisors can run this complex mine sustainably. We believe it will cause severe damage to the long-term prospects of the Loulo-Gounkoto complex. The Loulo-Gounkoto complex is inextricably linked to Barrick’s global platforms, logistics, technical and management support, all governed by our rigorous safety and operational standards. Starting up the mine is one thing, but without this integrated support, any attempt to operate the mine will be inefficient and unsafe, posing a risk to both the workforce, surrounding communities but also the asset itself.
Barrick continues to oppose the provisional administrator’s appointment as illegitimate and not justified under OHADA laws. Somilo and Gounkoto only suspended operations due to the Malian government not allowing the export of gold and then seizing over three tonnes of their gold. If exports have been permitted to resume, which we understand is the case according to the provisional administrator report stated above, there is no warrant for a provisional administrator.
Barrick has serious concerns about the provisional administrator’s ability to operate a mine as intricate as the Loulo-Gounkoto Complex, in a manner that takes into account responsible stewardship, mitigates health, safety, and environmental risks, and further ensures the long term viability of the mine for the benefit of all stakeholders.
How is Barrick cooperating with the provisional administrator?
Barrick has provided the provisional administrator with IT, payroll, personnel, financial, operational, environmental, logistical, security, sustainability, and insurance information for Loulo-Gounkoto. In doing so, Barrick has sought to facilitate the handover of the day-to-day operations as responsibly as possible, while preserving its legal position.
What is the status of the three tonnes of gold seized by the Malian government in January 2025?
The Malian government has not communicated the fate of the three tonnes of our gold it seized in January, which further demonstrates the lack of good faith and respect for legal process.