International Investment Arbitration and the Right to Regulate: Lessons from African State Experiences for Nigeria

This research analyses African state experiences in international investment arbitration with a focus on the tension between investor protection obligations and the regulatory autonomy of host states, drawing analytical lessons for Nigeria's investment treaty policy. African states have faced a growing number of ICSID and UNCITRAL arbitral claims arising from measures in the public health, environmental, and taxation domains, raising fundamental questions about whether investment treaties unduly constrain legitimate regulatory action. Using a comparative case study methodology, the research examines arbitral awards against South Africa (Philip Morris), Burkina Faso (Goetz), Tanzania (Swissport), and Kenya (World Duty Free) in the context of their regulatory and governance implications, and draws lessons for Nigeria's BIT negotiations and domestic investment legislation. The study critically evaluates the right to regulate carve-out provisions in Nigeria's model BIT and recent African investment instruments including the AfCFTA Investment Protocol, assessing their adequacy in preserving policy space. It fills a research gap by systematically mapping the outcomes of investment arbitration claims involving African energy and natural resource sectors, which have direct relevance to Nigeria's dominant oil and gas investment context. Findings indicate that Nigeria faces significant arbitration exposure in the oil sector under current BIT commitments and recommends a principled renegotiation strategy. An original analytical framework for evaluating the right to regulate in Africa's investment treaty network is developed. Keywords: investment arbitration, right to regulate, AfCFTA, BIT, Nigeria.