My personal opinion is that this sort of individual direct...

My personal opinion is that this sort of individual direct contact would hinder rather than help Leo at this point.

Despite other opinions that have been expressed here that Mali will somehow be worried about its international reputation as an investment destination, or feel threatened by potential International Court of Arbitration proceedings (that would ironically be run out of Paris!), or that Leo by virtue of its (now minority) stake in LMSA holds some sort of sway due to Goulamina’s size & scale, I think the reverse is true. The Mali Govt and Minister imo don’t give a toss about Australian shareholders and couldn’t care less that we are stuck forever in suspension on the ASX. I suspect they are in fact privately delighted about it, and receiving emails from aggrieved Leo shareholders would only galvanise them to keep putting the screws on.

Goulamina will be commissioned and will produce soon for its primary client, I have no doubt about that. It’s whether Leo will be getting any notable financial benefits from it - or will otherwise be handed a fait accompli by the sovereign lawmaking Mali in favour of themselves and GF - that I’m much less sure about. Many operators can run a lithium mine for a fee, so we shouldn’t get carried away assuming we are special in that regard. The special part (and reason for us to invest) was having the mining licence and, up until recently, equal control over it and the revenues that would flow from this. I think we’re very shortly going to find out one way (officially from Leo) or another (unofficially from boots on the ground) exactly what Mali wants - and imo whatever it is they will undoubtedly use their legislative & regulatory powers to get it.