Collapsing Divide Between Politics and Commerce: Why African firms must now treat geopolitics as commercial risk

For decades, western business leaders and their advisers operated on a reassuring assumption. Law, contracts and regulatory frameworks provided a stable and largely apolitical container around geopolitical risk. Politics might influence markets, but commercial decision-making could still be analysed through familiar legal logic. National security was something that happened elsewhere, handled by diplomats and defence establishments, not boards and law firms.

That assumption no longer holds.

The United States’ current strategic posture, outlined in its National Security Strategy document published in December 2025, reflects an integrated view of state power in which economic activity is treated as a deliberate instrument of strategy. Supply chains, industrial capacity, export controls, energy dominance, technology leadership and capital flows are no longer framed as policy choices but as security imperatives. Commerce is not simply shaped by politics. It is actively used to pursue political and strategic objectives.

This shift erodes what might be called the comforting fiction of apolitical commerce. The idea that law and contract can sit above geopolitics as a neutral stabiliser is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

There are two reasons for this. First, the United States has made it clear that it regards economic tools as instruments of national power rather than neutral regulatory mechanisms. Competitiveness, industrial policy and market leverage are no longer treated as economic preferences but as strategic necessities. Second, and more destabilising, there is growing evidence of a willingness to act first and justify later, including in ways that place pressure on established principles of international law. The significance lies less in the legal debates that follow than in the precedents that are created. Legal reasoning increasingly follows action rather than constraining it.

The consequence is a new business reality. Geopolitical posture is becoming a priced variable in commercial decision-making.

Political strategies resetting expectations

It is easy to dismiss strategy documents as aspiration and political rhetoric as theatre. The more important question is whether these ideas are being translated into action in ways that reset expectations. Recent developments suggest that they are.

The intervention in Venezuela marked a clear break from older assumptions about how power is exercised. The removal of the country’s leadership through direct action was framed as law enforcement but was not accompanied by multilateral authorisation or grounded in a widely accepted legal framework. What matters is not the debate about legality itself but the signal that normal constraints may no longer operate as they once did.

More striking still were the immediate commercial implications. Statements implying control over Venezuelan oil assets raised serious questions about contract sanctity, concession security and the enforceability of cross-border agreements. When sovereignty and strategic necessity become the primary frame, contracts become secondary and enforceability becomes contested. For global firms and investors, the lesson is not about who is right, but about the erosion of commercial predictability in favour of strategic assertion.

This raises a question that would once have seemed unthinkable. Does international law meaningfully constrain state action where core strategic interests are at stake. Increasingly, the answer appears to be conditional. Arguments that exceptional authority can override international legal norms are no longer marginal. When enforcement and recognition depend on geopolitical alignment rather than settled rules, firms can no longer price risk through traditional legal analysis alone. Licences, concessions, approvals and even corporate presence become contingent not just on compliance, but on political posture.

Unsettled alliances

These dynamics are not confined to adversarial states. Statements suggesting that strategic necessity could justify pressure on allied territories have unsettled long-standing assumptions about the protection offered by alliance status. When geography, resources, or defence interests are involved, even close allies may find that sovereignty is treated as negotiable. For commerce, this reframes risk in a fundamental way. Alignment matters more than affiliation.

Nor is the collapse of the political and commercial divide limited to military action. Sanctions and regulatory pressure are increasingly used to exert influence without force. Measures framed as responses to regulatory disagreement or ideological conflict can restrict travel, professional engagement and market access. In this environment, individuals as well as institutions become exposed to geopolitical risk. For professional services firms, this is a practical concern. Executive mobility, board participation and advisory work can all be affected.

For African law firms, these developments are not distant or abstract. Many African economies sit at the intersection of strategic resources, infrastructure development, sovereign authority and international capital. Legal advisers in these markets operate close to the state and often advise on matters that are politically sensitive by their nature. As global powers increasingly treat economic systems as extensions of strategic power, the law firm itself becomes part of the risk assessment.

Clients are no longer asking only whether a transaction is legally sound. They are asking whether the choice of adviser, structure, or jurisdiction changes how risk is perceived in a world where geopolitical alignment matters. In this context, African sovereignty and resource governance take on heightened significance. As competition for energy, minerals and supply chains intensifies, firms that can demonstrate local accountability, clear governance and political neutrality gain an advantage.

This creates both a challenge and an opportunity for African law firms. Neutrality can no longer be assumed. It has to be demonstrated. Governance structures, decision-making authority and conflict management are no longer internal matters alone. They form part of the firm’s external signal to clients, regulators and counterparties.

What does this mean in practical terms?

First, geopolitical analysis must be treated as a core component of commercial due diligence. It should inform advice on transactions, investments and disputes, not as a theoretical overlay but as a concrete driver of risk and value.

Second, firms need to be able to clearly explain where they are governed from, how decisions are made, and how alignment risk is managed. Transparency in governance is becoming a commercial differentiator.

Third, advisers must help clients think through sovereign and political risk in practical terms. The question is not simply whether a contract is enforceable in theory, but how enforceability might be affected if strategic interests shift or external pressure increases.

Fourth, international capability remains essential, but it must be balanced with structural independence. Alliances and referral relationships can extend reach without importing unnecessary exposure or signalling risk.

The era in which global commerce could be comfortably separated from geopolitics is over. Powerful states are openly integrating economic activity into their strategic doctrine and acting on that integration in ways that challenge traditional legal assumptions. African law firms are participants in this shift.

What is new is that this environment does not only increase risk. It redistributes advantage. As geopolitical alignment becomes a factor in adviser selection, global firms increasingly carry the weight of their home jurisdictions’ strategic posture. For many clients, that exposure is no longer theoretical. It is priced, scrutinised, and, in some cases, actively avoided.

Those African firms that recognise this early and respond with strategic clarity, strong governance, and demonstrable independence will protect their clients, and occupy a position in the market that has been less obvious for many years: trusted, regionally anchored advisers whose value lies not in borrowed global reach, but in credibility, neutrality and proximity to sovereign reality. In a fractured geopolitical order, that combination is now a competitive advantage and no longer a limitation.

Robert Otty is the co-founder and CEO of Orellium Advisory Services. A former CEO of Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa, and Global COO and CFO of Norton Rose Fulbright, he is a seasoned leader known for his direct, collaborative style. He excels in managing global projects and portfolios, with expertise in technology integration and organisational design.