A few months back, I wrote in this column about insurgents holding boardroom veto power over development projects in Africa, referencing, among others, TotalEnergies’ $20-billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in northern Mozambique, which was put on hold after an attack on a nearby town by Islamist elements in early 2021 until its October restart.

Now the French energy giant is seeking an eye-watering $4.5-billion in cost overruns linked to the delay from the Mozambique government. It has also requested a ten-year extension to its concession, more than double the length of the delay.

Maputo’s response has been categorical: it won’t pay up until an audit of the multibillion-dollar claim has been completed. This is not just a technical overview of the cost overruns but a rare moment of African assertiveness in negotiating with multinational corporations of the stature of TotalEnergies. In other words, it is letting it be known that the pause in the development of the LNG project in Cabo Delgado district does not give the company carte blanche to pass every bill on to Mozambican citizens.

At the heart of the dispute is a simple question: Who pays for the cost of insecurity in African countries? No-one would argue that TotalEnergies acted unreasonably when it declared force majeure in the aftermath of the jihadist attack. But asking the Mozambique government to assume billions of dollars in cost overruns and simultaneously requesting a decade-long extension to its concession is akin to testing how far its host nation can bend. 

TotalEnergies’ actions have incurred the ire of nongovernment organisations (NGOs) at home and abroad, which accuse it of holding Mozambique hostage, according to media reports.

In a media release on October 27, Mozambican NGO Justica Ambietal charged: “TotalEnergies is attempting a new tour de force to obtain ultra-favourable restart conditions. One of the world’s richest companies is holding one of the poorest countries hostage.

“The Mozambique government has been pressured to provide public security forces to protect the TotalEnergies project – and now it is being required to pay the costs of the delays. This would weaken Mozambique’s economy, worsen living conditions for Mozambicans and further fuel the insurgency.”

The media release was signed by six other NGOs, including Friends of the Earth France and Reclaim Finance, which works at the intersection of finance and climate justice.

The NGOs’ criticism of TotalEnergies resonates in a region where extractive projects have often deepened grievances rather than alleviated them. The insurgency in Cabo Delgado feeds on poverty, marginalisation and the perception that the district’s natural-gas wealth benefits everyone except local people. Any negotiation that appears to favour the company at Mozambique’s expense is likely to reinforce the very conditions that fuelled the conflict.

The Mozambique government’s response so far – completing an audit before approving the claimed payment – is prudent. It also reflects a broader continental shift where African governments increasingly recognise the need to safeguard fiscal sovereignty when dealing with multinational resource companies. Senegal readily comes to mind. In 2024, the West African nation launched a major effort to reclaim control over its oil and gas resources, setting up a commission to review and renegotiate contracts with foreign companies that critics charged had long favoured international interests.

The country’s President, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, stated at the time: “There will be a renegotiation taking into account mutual benefits. Other countries in Africa and elsewhere have negotiated better to get the maximum possible for their resources.”

The Mozambique case reveals another important shift: African governments are starting to realise that they can use more than just laws and contracts to protect national interests; they can also leverage international attention to their advantage. The NGOs’ very public criticism of TotalEnergies, for example, is not just moral grandstanding; it strengthens the Mozambique government’s hand in negotiations with the French energy giant.

This sends a clear and unmistakable message to other multinationals that they cannot call all the shots and pass costs on to the State without scrutiny. The new resource nationalism highlighted by the Mozambique case is not about being combative or hostile to investment. Instead, it is about ensuring that the wealth under African soil or along its coasts benefits the continent’s people, not just directors in faraway boardrooms and the shareholders they represent.