By Andrea Ngombet, Executive Director of the Sassoufit Collective

In the gloomy corridors of power in Brazzaville and the marble chambers of Moscow, a deal has been struck—inked quietly, drafted diplomatically, but carrying the weight of neocolonial ambition cloaked in infrastructure. The Republic of Congo, a nation of vast oil reserves and stubborn poverty, has agreed to grant Russia a 90% stake in a transnational oil pipeline on its soil. This agreement is not a partnership. It is not cooperation. It is capitulation masquerading as development.

Let us call this what it is: a concession born of imbalance, obscured by the language of mutual benefit. The Pointe-Noire–Brazzaville oil product pipeline, stretching roughly 455 kilometers across Congolese territory, is being sold off—both literally and metaphorically—for a song. And the tune is playing in Moscow’s favor.

Ownership or Occupation?

At the heart of the agreement lies an astonishing inequity: a joint venture in name only, with Russia owning 90% and Congo a mere 10%. Congo provides the land. Congo provides the workforce. Congo opens the gates to regional markets. But Congo does not truly participate.

The land footprint alone—valuable terrain connecting the economic lifeblood of Pointe-Noire to the political heart of Brazzaville—ought to command more than a symbolic stake. By comparison, even Russia’s Arctic LNG deals grant host nations like Mozambique upwards of 25–35% equity.

This project is not a pipeline. It is an artery, and the blood it pumps will largely nourish a foreign body.

Revenue as Mirage

The numbers are sobering. Under the current arrangement, Congo will earn approximately $112.5 million over 25 years. If the ownership were adjusted to a still modest 45%, its share would rise to over $500 million. That’s nearly $400 million lost—not to inefficiency, not to corruption, but to a negotiation table where only one chair was occupied.

Russia brings capital and engineering, yes. However, Congo brings oil, land, and a strategic position that opens access to over 100 million potential consumers in Central Africa. These contributions translate into just 10% equity, which is not merely poor economics. It is economic erasure. It is high treason.

The pipeline’s terminus near Brazzaville positions Russia to capture demand from the DRC (100M population) and CAR, markets Kenya’s investors value at $229M annually in fuel alone. Congo’s 10% stake grants minimal benefit from this strategic access.

Comparative Equity Analysis

	Congo’s Contribution	Russian JV Compensation
Resource Value	Oil exports ($5.7B annually)	10% of pipeline profits (~$4.5M/year)
Infrastructure	Land rights for 25+ years	No ownership during the concession period
Market Access	Gateway to ECCAS bloc (11 nations)	Unrestricted Russian control over distribution

The pipeline’s terminus near Brazzaville positions Russia to capture demand from the DRC (100M population) and CAR, markets Kenya’s investors value at $229M annually in fuel alone. Congo’s 10% stake, earning only $112.5 million over 25 years, is less than 50% of the annual fuel market!

The agreement effectively treats Congo’s oil, land, and market position as expendable bargaining chips rather than foundational assets warranting equitable partnership. A fairer model would tie ownership percentages to:

• Resource value (Congo’s oil reserves)
• Infrastructure lifespan (25-year land use)
• Regional market potential (ECCAS trade bloc access)

A 45% Congolese stake would better reflect these inputs while still compensating Russia’s technical expertise and upfront investment.

Justice Deferred, Justice Denied

The legal architecture of the agreement further entrenches Russia’s upper hand. Disputes will not be resolved in Brazzaville, nor even in a mutually agreed venue. Russia retains the unilateral right to choose between arbitration centers in Dubai—a jurisdiction with which it has far greater legal familiarity. Congo, by contrast, is cast into procedural darkness, denied even the dignity of legal parity.

What happens when a dispute arises? What recourse does Congo have if the pipeline is mismanaged, under-maintained, or used to exert pressure? The answer: none, beyond the faint hope that Dubai’s arbitrators might look kindly on a partner who never had a chance to begin with.

The Geopolitical Toll: A Faustian Bargain with Moscow

The cost of this agreement is not only financial or legal—it is geopolitical. To align with Russia in 2025 is to walk willingly into diplomatic isolation. Europe has already severed its dependence on Russian energy, reducing fossil fuel imports by over 90% since 2022. Western powers are clear: collaboration with sanctioned Russian entities will carry consequences.  Alexander Ilyin, the enigmatic owner of Zakneftegazstroy-Prometei, remained a shadowy figure in the background as the project moved forward, leaving many to wonder about the true motivations behind this massive infrastructure investment in the heart of Africa. By entangling Congo in a long-term, high-profile infrastructure project with Moscow, the Sassou Nguesso regime invites not partnership but scrutiny, if not outright punishment. From potential sanctions to the quiet freezing of international development assistance, the fallout will be felt far beyond the pipeline’s terminus.

Moreover, by turning eastward for oil development, Congo sidelines relationships with democratic powers. This unfair contract sends a signal that Congo will continue to trade transparency for expediency and sovereignty for potential bribes. It is a dangerous message—one that undermines not only the economy but also the country’s future.

Russia, meanwhile, reaps more than fuel. It gains a foothold in Central Africa, a staging ground for influence, disinformation, and geopolitical leverage. The pipeline is not just infrastructure; it is an instrument of power.

Sovereignty for Sale

Supporters of the deal point to its promise of energy stability—an end to fuel shortages that have sparked protests and power outages. They claim the 25-year build-operate-transfer model ensures eventual local ownership. But a quarter-century is a generation. For 25 years, Russia will own, operate, and profit from one of Congo’s most vital energy corridors. And after 25 years? The handover will likely resemble the gifting of a rusted lock with no key.

There are no provisions for local hiring, no guarantees of technology transfer, and no assurances that Congolese engineers, welders, planners, and regulators will learn to manage such a pipeline. This joint venture is not development—it is dependency by design.

A Call to Resist

• To the lawmakers of Congo: reject this agreement.  
• To the citizens of Congo: demand more than crumbs from the feast on your table.  
• To Africa’s leaders: Watch closely, for this is how sovereignty is hollowed out—not through invasion but through contract.

This call is a petition not just of protest but of principle. Let no nation, no matter how mighty, walk away with a continent’s resources for the price of machinery and arbitration clauses.

Congo is not for lease. Not its land. Not its oil. Not its future.

Endorse this call. Share it. Raise your voice.