Sino Metals denies negligence in $220m toxic spill lawsuit

By GRACE CHAILE

SINO Metals Leach Zambia Limited has denied liability for the toxic spill that allegedly polluted local water sources and damaged livelihoods, insisting that the incident was caused by natural disasters and acts of vandalism rather than negligence.
This is in a case before the Lusaka High court in which three environmental organisations, Mizu Ecocare, Action for Nature and Conservation Advocates Zambia, together with 54 individuals, have sued Sino Metals and NFC Africa Mining Plc, demanding US$220 million in compensation for alleged environmental harm.
The plaintiffs want the compensation to cover independent environmental and social impact assessments, livelihood restoration, resettlement, medical care, clean water and decent housing for affected residents.
However, Sino Metals has argued in its defence that the tailings dam failure was caused by “circumstances beyond its control,” including flooding and multiple acts of malicious vandalism that interfered with the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) lining of the dam.
The company stated that the dam in question, TDI5F, collapsed on February 18, 2025, due to factors that were not “reasonably foreseeable,” and maintained that it had fully complied with all legal and environmental requirements under the Environmental Management Act, the WARMA Act, and the Mines and Minerals Development Act.
“These circumstances include but are not limited to an act of God on account of flooding and multiple incidents of malicious vandalism involving interference with the HDPE by their parties and it was not on account of negligence and or wrongdoing on the first defendant’s part,” it said.
Sino Metals challenged the legal standing of the NGOs to commence the action on behalf of thousands of affected people, arguing that there was no proof that Section 119 of the Environmental Management Act had been properly invoked.
“The interest and motives of the three organisations in bringing this action have not been established,” the company submitted, adding that it would require “strict proof” of their authority and the plaintiffs’ claims.
Sino Metals demanded that each of the 54 individual plaintiffs prove that they live in the affected area, own or occupy the land in question, and personally suffered the alleged damage.
The company added that the water quality has since returned to normal, and that it has taken “significant steps” to mitigate the impact of the spill, including treating contaminated water, cooperating with regulators, and compensating some affected parties.
The mining firm described the lawsuit as premature, citing an ongoing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) by the Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA), which it said should inform any remedial action.
Sino Metals also disclosed that some of the plaintiffs, including Kaole Mulowa and eight others, are already involved in a separate case before the same court under Cause No. 2025/1285, calling the current action a “multiplicity and abuse of court process.”
The company added that it has paid all regulatory fines related to the incident and reiterated that the plaintiffs “have no legitimate interest” in bringing the case before the EIA is concluded and the petition be dismissed.