Turkey–Africa Bilateral Investment Treaties: What Investors on Both Sides Need to Know

How Significant Is Turkey's Investment Presence in Africa?

Turkey is not a marginal investor in Africa. By end of 2023, Turkish contracting companies had completed projects on the continent worth a cumulative USD 85+ billion — including landmark infrastructure such as the Kigali Convention Centre, the Blaise Diagne International Airport in Senegal, and parliamentary buildings across West and Central Africa.

Bilateral trade between Turkey and Africa reached approximately USD 37 billion in 2024, up from USD 5.4 billion in 2003. EY's 2024 Africa Attractiveness Report placed Turkey among the top five source countries for FDI-related job creation on the continent. Turkish Airlines now serves more than 60 African destinations.

More recently, Turkey has moved beyond construction into energy, mining, and defence. In 2024 alone: TPAO signed exploration agreements in Somalia; Turkey concluded an energy MOU with Senegal; and a Turkish gold mining company established the first Turkish gold refinery on the continent, in Ghana.

Which African Countries Has Turkey Signed BITs With?

Turkey has signed bilateral investment treaties with over 98 states globally; approximately 76 are currently in force. Turkey's African BIT network is one of the most extensive of any emerging-market economy, covering all five African sub-regions.

First-Generation vs. Second-Generation BITs

Turkey's BIT network is not uniform. Treaties concluded before approximately 2010 tend to feature broader investment definitions, stronger ISDS access, and wider substantive protections. Post-2011 treaties follow the modern trend of preserving greater regulatory space for host states, with narrower definitions and explicit carve-outs.

The specific generation of the applicable treaty materially affects what an investor can claim — and how.

What Protections Do Turkey–Africa BITs Actually Provide?

The following protections appear, in varying formulations, across most in-force Turkey–Africa BITs. Their exact scope depends on the specific treaty text.

How Are Investment Disputes Resolved Under Turkey–Africa BITs?

What arbitral fora are available?

Most Turkey–Africa BITs offer investors a menu of dispute resolution options, typically including ICSID arbitration and/or arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules. Turkey has been a party to the ICSID Convention since 1988, and the majority of its African treaty partners are also member states.

ICSID arbitration is frequently preferred for investment treaty claims because ICSID awards are enforceable as of right in all member states under Article 54 of the ICSID Convention — without the possibility of domestic courts reviewing the merits.

What is the cooling-off period and why does it matter?

Virtually all Turkey BITs contain a mandatory cooling-off period — typically six months from the date the dispute arises — during which the investor must attempt amicable settlement before filing for arbitration. Failure to satisfy this requirement can affect the admissibility of the claim or deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction entirely.

Investors should maintain contemporaneous documentary evidence of their attempts at negotiation. A pre-arbitration letter addressed to the correct state authority, with clear identification of the dispute and amounts claimed, is standard practice.

What is a fork-in-the-road clause and why is it dangerous?

Several Turkey BITs include a fork-in-the-road clause, which requires the investor to choose between domestic court litigation and international arbitration. Once a choice is made, it is irrevocable. Some variants also require the investor to formally withdraw any pending domestic proceedings before the international tribunal can assume jurisdiction.

Practical Steps: What Should Investors Do Now?

If you are a Turkish company with an African investment

• Verify treaty status Confirm that the BIT with your host state is in force, and review the specific treaty text — not a summary. Check the UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub and the Turkish Official Gazette.
• Structure investments for treaty protection If no BIT exists with your target state, consider whether the investment can be structured through an entity in a state that has an in-force BIT. Do this before investment — not after a dispute has arisen.
• Include a well-drafted arbitration clause in every contract BIT protection does not replace a solid contractual arbitration clause. Specify the seat, rules (ICC, LCIA, or ICSID for state-party contracts), and governing law.
• Document your investment thoroughly BIT standing requires proof of a qualifying "investment." Maintain records of all capital contributions, licences, regulatory approvals, and communications with state authorities.
• Engage pre-dispute counsel Specialist arbitration counsel retained at the structuring stage — not only after a dispute crystallises — significantly improves both protection and negotiating leverage.

If you are an African party or government

Turkey–Africa BITs are reciprocal instruments. African investors holding qualifying investments in Turkey may also be entitled to invoke BIT protections against Turkish regulatory measures — a dimension of these treaties that is almost entirely unexplored in practice.

For African governments, the key exposure arises from regulatory changes — particularly in extractive industries and infrastructure — that adversely affect existing Turkish investments. Proposed legislative action should be reviewed against BIT obligations before implementation.

States currently negotiating BITs with Turkey should reference the Pan-African Investment Code (2016) and the SADC Model BIT Template to ensure the treaty preserves adequate regulatory space for public interest measures, environmental protection, and local content requirements.

The Bottom Line

Turkey's engagement with Africa is deepening — in scale, sector diversity, and legal complexity. The bilateral investment treaty framework underpinning that engagement offers meaningful protections to investors on both sides, but only to those who understand its architecture.

The Turkey–Africa BIT network is extensive but uneven. Treaty generation, substantive scope, and procedural requirements vary materially from instrument to instrument. No investor — Turkish or African — should assume uniform treatment across the network.

The time to engage with this framework is before a dispute arises, not after.