Corporate Disclosures vs. Ecological Realities: A Critical Accountability Framework for African Extractive Governance through the Nigerien Uranium Lens

This study interrogates the systemic decoupling between corporate sustainability disclosures and socio-ecological realities in African extractive enclaves, using the Nigerien uranium sector as a critical case. While global ESG frameworks simulate ethical stewardship, multinational entities in frontier markets externalize environmental liabilities, perpetuating post-colonial wealth leakage. Grounded in ecological economics, dependency theory, and critical accounting, a Comparative Critical Case design benchmarks Niger’s sovereign realignments against established regulatory models in Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, China, and Namibia. Integrating Critical Discourse Analysis with independent biophysical telemetry, this research exposes an epistemic rift: corporate narratives act as "reputational shields" obscuring radioactive tailings and severe aquifer depletion. Highlighting the 2024–2026 nationalization of the SOMAÏR mine, the study frames this macro-political event as a systemic rejection of traditional concessionary frameworks. Its central contribution is the Critical Accountability Framework (CAF). By operationalizing the Biophysical Deficit Index (BDIt), the CAF transitions governance from performative reporting to biophysically verified accounting. This "Accounting Turn" reconceptualizes ecological degradation as a material fiscal liability—the Ecological Surcharge Tax (TEco)—enforced via the Sentinel Ledger. Ultimately, this dismantles the "Assurance Expectation Gap," positioning the professional accountant as a "Strategic Architect of National Sovereignty" anchoring intergenerational equity.