London court to test what 'responsible gold' means
The families of two young Tanzanians shot dead near a mine in 2019 are suing the body that certified its gold. Thirty more Tanzanians have joined them.
London — A case in London's High Court is putting the gold industry's own ethical label on trial. The families of two 23-year-old Tanzanian men who were shot dead in 2019 are suing the London Bullion Market Association, the body that oversees the London gold market, over its decision to certify gold from the mine concerned as responsible.
Human Rights Watch, which set out the background in a commentary on 1 October, said the trial was due to open the following week. Thirty more Tanzanians have recently joined the claim.
The mine
The gold came from North Mara, in Tarime district in north-west Tanzania, a mine operated by Barrick Gold. Rights groups have reported for years that police have killed and injured people accused of trespassing and digging for gold there.
Barrick has acknowledged that deaths occurred but says the police were not under its control. An earlier lawsuit over the killings, in Canada, was dismissed when the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction.
The label
The case turns on a certification system. Refiners that belong to the association are audited every year against its Responsible Gold Guidance, which requires them to identify human rights risks in their supply chains and respond to them.
According to Human Rights Watch, an Indian-Swiss refinery went on buying gold from North Mara until 2024. The refinery says it followed the guidance rigorously.
The families argue that the association was wrong to certify that gold. The association rejects the claim that the deaths were caused by, or connected to, its work.
Not the first question
Human Rights Watch points to an earlier example. In 2023 it found that the association had certified gold from a mine in Ethiopia as responsible until 2018 despite serious abuses, including severe pollution that affected the health of children and pregnant women. The association's answer then was that the guidance in force at the time did not cover environmental harm.
Since then, the association has started to require disclosure of suppliers in locations it flags as sensitive, which the organisation calls a step towards transparency.
Why it matters beyond one mine
The author of the commentary, Juliane Kippenberg, argues that voluntary schemes are not enough. She calls on governments to pass laws requiring companies to respect rights throughout their supply chains, and on certification bodies to audit more thoroughly, publish their audit reports and make members disclose where their metal comes from.
Source: Human Rights Watch, 1 October 2026.
