CFM Lawyers and Phillips Barristers PC are legal counsel for Sophia Matiko John and 42 other Tanzanian plaintiffs in two human rights lawsuits against Barrick Mining Company regarding killings and other abuses at Barrick’s North Mara Mine in a remote region of Tanzania near the Kenyan border. The lawsuits allege that Barrick, in its role as parent company and overseer of operations at North Mara, is responsible at law for instances of torture, beatings, disappearances, and killings allegedly perpetrated by the Tanzanian Police Force (TPF) while operating as a security provider to the mine.  

The Plaintiffs are the victims and family members of victims of violence that has occurred in and around the mine. They are largely subsistence farmers, some of whom seek to supplement their livelihoods by extracting trace amounts of gold from the waste rock created by the mine’s activities.  

Barrick has essentially retained the TPF to act as its private security in and around the mine. Barrick’s subsidiary, North Mara Gold Mine Limited (“NMGML”) has entered into an agreement with the TPF to provide security for the mine. Under the current agreement, NMGML pays wages to individual police officers; provides fuel, vehicle repairs, food, and lodging; and transferred legal title for a TPF barracks. In exchange, the TPF provides a heavily armed security force at North Mara with 142 officers and three liaison officers working in the mine’s security office. Barrick is heavily involved in the relationship with the TPF: Barrick’s regional General Counsel and Sustainability Team helped negotiate the agreement. Barrick senior executives including the CEO, COO Africa, and Sustainability Executive reviewed the agreement before signing. Top Barrick executives signed the Agreement on behalf of NMGML. Barrick itself has rights under the agreement separate from NMGML’s rights. Barrick hired a North American company to train the TPF and to conduct human rights assessments at the North Mara mine. 

Mine-related violence committed by the TPF against members of the local population has been ongoing for over a decade. A Tanzanian parliamentary inquiry, human rights groups, and local residents have estimated that the number of people shot and killed by security forces at the mine is somewhere between 77 and 100. Some estimates put the number of injuries as high as 304. The majority of these incidents have occurred since Barrick acquired the mine in 2006.  

The lawsuit against Barrick sets out allegations of shootings, beatings, kidnappings, and killings. In one alleged incident, William Itama Machera Max, the late husband of plaintiff Dotto William Itama, was shot in the lower back and killed by Mine Police chasing unrelated persons through a residential area while firing live ammunition. In another, the plaintiff Ryoba Elias Kebwe was forcibly taken from a barber shop near the mine, tasered, and brought to the mine site where Mine Police beat him repeatedly with wooden sticks on the feet, knees, back, and buttocks. In multiple other incidents, the Mine Police are alleged to have shot and killed individuals for searching the mine’s waste dumps for trace amounts of gold, often without warning. 

Barrick, a Canadian company with its head office in Toronto, retains ultimate control over human rights and security at its mine in North Mara. Barrick operates globally through a series of subsidiaries that are required to follow company-wide policies issued by Barrick, including its Human Rights Policy, and Use of Force Standard. According to Barrick, its policies “apply to all of Barrick’s operations” including the North Mara mine. Barrick has a Group Sustainability Executive who Barrick states is “one of Barrick’s most senior leaders” and has “day to day Responsibility [and is] ultimately responsible for ensuring that human rights abuses do not happen” at Barrick’s mines. Barrick’s COO Africa has “overall responsibility for overseeing operations” at Barrick’s African mines. Any material issue regarding human rights at an African mine is escalated to Barrick’s executives. 

In light of Barrick’s human rights commitments and its direct involvement in security and human rights at North Mara, the Plaintiffs seek to hold Barrick accountable for acts of violence and rights violations allegedly carried out on its behalf by the TPF as an incident to the mining activities of its subsidiary in Tanzania. 

Access to justice requires the lawsuit to be heard in Canada 

In 2024, Barrick brought a motion in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice arguing that the lawsuit should be heard in Tanzania, not Canada.  

The Plaintiffs argue that the lawsuit must be heard in Canada or it will not be heard at all. There are several reasons for this position.  

First, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is against Barrick, a Canadian company, for its own actions and inactions that led to the harms. Canadian courts are the proper venue to judge the actions of a Canadian corporation. 

Second, there is no realistic possibility of justice in Tanzania. The Plaintiffs cannot afford legal counsel, and contingency fees are prohibited in Tanzania. Likewise, there is no realistic possibility of legal aid in Tanzania given the scale, scope and complexity of this claim against an extremely well-resourced transnational company. Current conditions in Tanzania make the already tenuous possibility of legal action in the country even more unlikely and dangerous. In October and November of 2025, a wave of state violence swept Tanzania in the leadup to and aftermath of an election that international observers concluded did not meet democratic standards. A joint statement by the Foreign Ministers of Canada, Norway, and the UK expressed concern over “credible reports of a large number of fatalities and significant injuries as a result of the security response to protests” by the TPF, the same police force accused of wrongdoing in this lawsuit. 

The impossibility of bringing a lawsuit of this nature in Tanzania is self-evident. Despite decades of violence related to the North Mara mine, to date there have been no lawsuits brought against Barrick or North Mara Gold Mine Limited in Tanzania related to allegations of police violence at the mine. 

Current status of the lawsuit 

On November 26, 2024, Justice E. M. Morgan issued a decision in favour of Barrick, dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs appealed the decision on the basis that the motion judge made fundamental errors of fact and law that tainted his analysis of the jurisdiction issue. The Plaintiffs’ appeal was heard by a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal on November 27, 2025. The decision of the Court of Appeal is expected on April 7, 2026.  

Key Documents 

Pleadings/Key Court Documents 

• Statement of Claim, issued November 23, 2022 – setting out basic allegations in the lawsuit regarding the original Plaintiffs 
• Statement of Claim, issued February 5, 2024 – setting out basic allegations in the lawsuit regarding additional Plaintiffs 
• Appellants’ Factum – containing the appellants’ argument regarding why lawsuit should be heard in Canada 

Key Evidence  

• Oral Compendium – containing key evidence relied on by the Plaintiffs/Appellants in oral arguments at the Ontario Court of Appeal 
  • Volume 1 
  • Volume 2 
• Appeal Book and Compendium – containing further evidence relied on by the Plaintiffs/Appellants in written and oral argument on appeal
  • Volume 1
  • Volume 2 
• 2022 Memorandum of Understanding between TPF and Barrick subsidiary North Mara Gold Mine Limited 

• 2022 Memorandum of Understanding
• 2022 Statement of Claim
• 2024 Statement of Claim
• Appellants’ Appeal Book and Compendium – Volume 1 of 2
• Appellants’ Appeal Book and Compendium – Volume 2 of 2
• Appellants’ Factum – ONCA
• Appellants’ Oral Compendium – Volume 1 of 2
• Appellants’ Oral Compendium – Volume 2 of 2