The deaths of two young Tanzanian gold miners, allegedly shot by police while fleeing the North Mara mine, have become the focus of a landmark London court battle that could reshape how the global gold industry is held accountable for human rights abuses.
At the heart of the six-week trial, which opened at London’s High Court on October 7, is a question reaching far beyond Tanzania: can an organisation that certifies gold refiners be held legally responsible for alleged abuses at mines supplying them, even when it does not directly control those operations?
For the families bringing the lawsuit, the case begins not with international gold trading rules, but with the loss of two young men who were trying to earn a living.
Both were 23 years old. Both farmed and supplemented their incomes through unlicensed artisanal mining around North Mara, one of Tanzania’s largest gold operations.
Their identities are protected by a court order, and they are referred to in the proceedings as ZZZ and ZZY.
According to court documents examined by Reuters, the men were allegedly killed by Tanzanian police in separate incidents in July and December 2019.
Their relatives maintain that neither posed a threat when police opened fire.
In ZZZ’s case, the claimants say he had left his panga, a traditional machete, at home and was unarmed. Witnesses and relatives allege that ZZY was shot in the back while running away.
The accounts remain disputed. The London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) points to a history of large-scale incursions at North Mara, sometimes involving hundreds or thousands of people, including some allegedly carrying machetes.
Tanzanian police did not respond to requests for comment.
For the families, however, the fundamental question remains whether the circumstances surrounding the deaths should have prompted stronger action from organisations benefiting from, or overseeing, the international gold trade.
The lawsuit takes an unusual route towards accountability.
Instead of suing the mining company or Tanzanian police, the families have brought their case against the LBMA, the London-based industry association whose Good Delivery List is widely recognised across the international bullion market.
Represented by British law firm Leigh Day, the claimants argue that the association failed to enforce its responsible-sourcing standards against MMTC-PAMP, a refiner in India that sourced gold from North Mara.
They contend that maintaining the refiner’s accreditation despite longstanding allegations of violence allowed gold linked to the mine to retain the credibility associated with responsible sourcing.
Their argument is that the LBMA had considerable commercial influence through its accreditation system and should have used that influence to press for stronger safeguards.
The families maintain that threatening to remove the refiner from the Good Delivery List could have placed significant financial pressure on those involved in the supply chain to address the alleged abuses.
The LBMA disputes that such pressure would necessarily have prevented the deaths.
LBMA rejects responsibility
The association has firmly rejected the lawsuit, arguing that its role in establishing industry standards does not make it responsible for policing security arrangements at individual mines.
In its official response to the North Mara claim, the LBMA says it is neither a statutory regulator nor an operator of mines and has no authority over the Tanzanian police.
It also stresses that its responsible-sourcing programme assesses refiners’ due-diligence systems through independent audits. It does not directly certify individual mines or guarantee that abuses cannot occur.
The association says that after becoming aware of the connection between North Mara and MMTC-PAMP in 2019, it initiated a review and subsequently monitored an independent assessment and improvement programme.
It maintains that the approach was consistent with international responsible-sourcing guidance and that removing accreditation would not necessarily have stopped violence at the mine.
The defence also challenges the evidence surrounding the two deaths.
According to Reuters, the LBMA has highlighted the absence of police incident reports, medical documentation and post-mortem evidence supporting important elements of the families’ allegations.
The claimants say concerns about reprisals explain their reluctance to obtain records from Tanzanian police.
These competing accounts will be central to the court’s examination of the case.
