Matadi Gateway Terminal (MGT), a maritime and port logistics company operating in Matadi, has been ordered to cancel contracts with 50 subcontracting firms deemed ineligible. The decision was made public on March 10, 2026, by the Authority for Regulation of Subcontracting in the Private Sector (ARSP), following an inspection conducted in October 2025.

MGT is a subsidiary of International Container Terminal Services (ICTSI), which holds a 52% stake in the company.

The regulator said the audit covered 58 subcontracting agreements signed between 2020 and 2025 between MGT and various service providers. Of those, only eight contracts were found to be compliant. The remaining 50 were signed with companies that did not meet eligibility criteria set out in subcontracting legislation.

In its decision, the ARSP ordered MGT to cancel all non-compliant contracts and relaunch tender processes for the affected contracts within 30 days of the decision. The regulator specified that the new tenders must allow all eligible companies to bid on equal terms, in accordance with the subcontracting law. The port operator was also required to work exclusively with local companies duly registered with the ARSP.

The authority said it would monitor compliance with the decision through periodic oversight, warning that any violation would expose the company to sanctions under applicable regulations.

Debate over ARSP's powers

The measure is part of a series of recent actions taken by the regulator to strengthen enforcement of the subcontracting law. In February, the ARSP ordered Kibali Gold Mine (KGM) to cancel several contracts signed with three subcontracting firms accused of being foreign-owned.

However, the ARSP's decisions have fueled a legal debate over the extent of the regulator's authority. "If the ARSP wants to have contracts annulled, it must go to court, not 'order the cancellation' of contracts," said business lawyer Romain Battajon. The attorney, who is a member of the mining chamber of the Federation of Enterprises of Congo (FEC), cited Article 14 of Decree No. 18/018, as amended by Decree No. 20/24, which provides that the sanction of nullity must be pronounced by the competent court upon referral by the ARSP.

Under that reading, the regulator may identify irregularities and refer matters to the judiciary, but cannot itself annul contracts. Doing so would, according to the lawyer, amount to conflating the functions of oversight, prosecution and adjudication, in disregard of the adversarial principle and the rights of the defense.

The ARSP, however, holds a different interpretation of the legal framework. The institution maintains that it is acting within its regulatory prerogatives by declaring certain companies ineligible for subcontracting and requiring principal companies to comply with the law. Under this approach, the decision constitutes an administrative measure aimed at cleaning up the sector and ensuring the application of the subcontracting law, without prejudice to any subsequent judicial proceedings.

Ronsard Luabeya