The Democratic Republic of Congo has escalated enforcement of its subcontracting law at two of the country’s largest copper and cobalt operations.
Under Decision No. 020/ARSP/DG/2026, dated 11 September, the Regulatory Authority for Subcontracting in the Private Sector, or ARSP, instructed Kamoto Copper Company and Mutanda Mining to terminate contracts with companies that have not demonstrated their eligibility to perform subcontracting work.
Both mining companies are operated by Glencore.
The order followed an examination of the companies’ supplier and service-provider lists. Of the 1,427 businesses associated with KCC, 472 were registered with the ARSP as eligible, while 955 had not demonstrated that they met the required conditions.
At Mutanda, 548 of 1,133 suppliers and service providers were recorded as eligible, compared with 585 that had not established compliance. Together, the disputed group represents 1,540 of the 2,560 businesses reviewed—about 60%.
What “ineligible” means
The finding does not necessarily mean that all 1,540 companies are foreign-owned or operating illegally in every aspect of their business.
Under the DRC’s 2017 subcontracting law, covered activities are generally reserved for companies with Congolese capital, promoted by Congolese nationals and headquartered in the country. Eligible subcontractors must also hold commercial registration, national identification and tax numbers, demonstrate compliance with the tax administration and show affiliation with a social-security institution.
The law permits limited exceptions when the necessary expertise is unavailable or inaccessible locally. Such arrangements must be justified to the competent authority and are subject to time restrictions.
This distinction matters because mining companies maintain large procurement networks covering equipment, consumables, logistics, maintenance, construction and specialist technical services. Not every ordinary supplier necessarily performs an activity legally classified as subcontracting. Correct implementation will therefore require the affected contracts to be assessed according to their scope, ownership and compliance status.
Thirty days to produce a corrective plan
The ARSP has ordered KCC and Mutanda to remove the affected companies from their subcontractor databases and refrain from awarding them new contracts until their status has been regularised.
The two companies have 30 days from notification to submit corrective plans. These must identify the businesses concerned, explain how the relevant contracts will be terminated and describe measures intended to increase access for companies that satisfy the legal requirements.
A subsequent inspection is expected to assess implementation. Failure to comply could expose the mining companies to sanctions under the subcontracting legislation.
The immediate commercial challenge will be continuity. KCC and Mutanda depend on extensive contractor networks to maintain mining, processing, transport and support operations. Abruptly replacing technically specialised companies could affect costs, maintenance schedules and operational reliability if equivalent capacity is not available.
For eligible Congolese businesses, however, the decision could create access to contracts that have remained concentrated among established suppliers. Capturing that opportunity will depend on their ability to meet mine-level requirements covering safety, technical competence, equipment, financing and delivery performance.
The ARSP order therefore does more than enforce company registration. It places the quality of the domestic supplier base alongside legal ownership as part of the DRC’s local-content test.
The measurable result will be found in the corrective plans: which contracts are terminated, which providers regularise their status, how many are transferred to eligible Congolese companies and whether the transition occurs without weakening operational performance.
