MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Kira Municipal Bosses Sued Over Land Grabbing In COVID-19 Road Scam

Published

5 years ago

June 25, 2020

Part of the land that is under contention

A city businessman has rushed to court to stop Kira Municipality officials from forcefully grabbing his land to open up an illegal road.

Harold B. Ssemalwadde, the Managing Director of logistics giant Globe Trotters Ltd sought court redress accusing the municipal bosses led by Mayor Julius Mutebi of orchestrating a plot to deprive him of his land through coercion and violence.

In his plaint filed through his lawyers of Barnabas DK Dyadi & Co. Advocates at the High Court Land Division in Kampala, Ssemalawadde wants court to direct the Kira Municipality officials to halt any attempts of illegally running a road through his land.

This is on the grounds that on top of killing his business that employs hundreds of Ugandans, the road construction is fueled by the alleged behind-the-scenes corruption and influence-peddling that government has already stated to be the greatest enemy stifling economic growth in Uganda.

DETAILS

According to court documents seen by this publication, the current land row traces its roots to 2010, when, following exponential growth of his company, Ssemalwadde bought land measuring over 15 acres at Bbuto-Bweyogerere, intending to relocate the business which was by then situated at Kiwatule-Ntinda in Kampala district.

Later, he further expanded the initial plot by acquiring more neighbouring plots of the land situated at the border of Wakiso and Mukono districts. By that time, most of this land lay idle, with just a portion of it being used for clay mining and bricklaying as a well as vegetable growing in the swamp thereon.

And as a law abiding Ugandan investor, Ssemalwadde in 2012/13 approached Kira Municipality land office to process the requisite legal documentation for his land.

Particularly, Ssemalwadde presented his site plan. This clearly showed that off his land title he had curved a road meant to feed into his over 25 acres of his logistics hub for approval.

And given the nature of his business, he ensured that the road that branched off the main Sonde-Bweyogerere road was wide enough and well tarmacked to ease the movement of trucks/his clients to and from his business.

This was also done upon realization that the nearest main (Bbuto- Kiwanga) road was about a kilometer away yet it was the sole one that was being used as a major access for all existing neighboring companies/businesses like the Kiwanga Poultry Farm and Kiwanga Thermal Power Plant. Ssemalwadde explains that he opted to open his own road after experts assessed that because his business involved heavy trucks turning all the time, it was wise for him to have a separate road for them so as not to disrupt traffic flow on the murram road that was being used by his neighbours and the general public. Besides that, the Bbuto-Kiwanga road is situated in Mukono district while his business is situated in Kira Municipality, Wakiso district.

TROUBLE BEGINS

Ssemalwadde avers that to date the Kira Municipality bosses are yet to return his approved plan despite several pleas and meetings over the same.

For instance, court records show that on September 19, 2016, Ssemalwadde wrote to the Kira Municipality Town Clerk complaining about lack of communication and feedback from the municipal council in respect to his plan.

Ssemalwadde further averred that he suspected that the municipal bosses were biding time so as to be able to alert the former Kira Mayor and his business allies about Ssemalwadde’s project with the aim of playing along the powerful politician’s whims.

The suspicions were confirmed when to his dismay; he learnt through rumors that the municipal officers were intending to construct a motorized access road through his land without his consent or knowledge.

As per their plan, the road would be an improvement of a footpath that connects to the gardens around his plot as well as to the drainage stream that separates Kiwanga in Mukono from Bbuto in Wakiso.

Unfortunately, this same road would only be constructed by breaking his perimeter wall so as to join the new road to the tarmac road that he constructed for his business (trucks and clients).

Ssemalwadde says that after getting wind of the rumours he approached the municipal officials and complained about their move.

He also highlighted to them the fact that the road through his company premises was unsafe to residents and his business as it exposed the former to accidents from turning trucks and the latter to theft of clients’ goods and general insecurity.

Initially, the two parties consented that the road was untenable given those circumstances. The municipal officials then suggested that he provides an alternative “footpath”.

Ssemalwadde says he did so by opening a footpath around his perimeter fence. He however admits that while the locals began using the new footpath, he did not block the old footpath through his land partly because he never wanted to tamper with the water table as advised by the environmental impact assessment report from NEMA.

COVID ROAD SPRINGS UP

Ssemalwadde says since then there has been harmony but trouble erupted afresh towards the end of March 2020 when, while observing the Covid-19 lockdown that saw him scale down on business at his company, his security guards summoned him to office.

This was after they had observed that some strange people were rolling culverts at night and stationing them at the point of the stream where they wanted to open the road.

Ssemalwadde says he contacted the police but on March 29, 2020, all hell broke loose when a group of vandals stormed his company with Mayor Julius Mutebi and demolished part of his wall fence for the construction of the earlier said road.

According to CCTV footage before court, Mutebi, using seemingly populist rhetoric, told the locals to “break the fence as no one can scare you since council approved what you’re doing.”

Further footage shows that the mob action was prior planned as the goons on site had two cars that were delivering water to them as the vandalism happened.

A distraught Ssemalwadde sought police intervention that later came and arrested a few of the vandals including John Okou, Wycliff Mulinge and Robert Mulinge among others.

Later, in early April, Ssemalwadde sought a meeting with Mutebi and his council. In the meeting that took place at the Globe Trotters company premises, mutebi shocked all and sundry when he admitted that whereas he was aware that there could have been some mistakes committed in vandalizing ssemalwadde’s perimeter wall, his hands were tied by majority and populist demands from his “voters”.

”I’m a politician and so I must always be on the people’s side; it doesn’t matter whether you (globe trotters) are right or not,” Mutebi is quoted saying in the meeting.

Corruption Cited

However, independent investigations have shown, according to court records that Ssemalwadde is a victim of influence peddling occasioned on the Kira Municipal bosses by his neighbor only identified as Herbert.

It is claimed that Herbert owns an expansive chunk of land next to Globe Trotters and has since used his privilege as a personal friend and business associate of the former Kira Municipality mayor to disadvantage Ssemalwadde.

Sources say that while the said land has only the Kiwanga-Bbuto road as the main access, its value and appeal will be elevated by an alternative road through Ssemalwadde’s company to the tarmac Bweyogerere-Sonde road.

This, it is suspected, is the invisible hand behind the current squabbles. It also explains why after years of tossing Ssemalwadde around in regard to his plan, the Kira municipal authorities rushed to open the road within a single day during the Covid-19 lockdowns when companies had been advised to either close business or scale down operations.

It has also emerged that police investigations discovered that as opposed to using area security, the Kira officials hired two LDU personnel from Katosi to guard the illegal road construction that was done by a single tractor.

LOSSES ALREADY

Ssemalwadde has told court that following the standoff, his clients including SPEDAG logistics firm have withdrawn business from him. He says the withdrawal came after the vandals stormed one of the customers’ containers, vandalized it and robbed goods worth shs450m.

“The said client was paying Shs15m daily but is now gone. Our business is being killed by mere populist politics yet it has been employing hundreds of vulnerable poor people within Bweyogerere and beyond but they are now all grounded because our customers are fleeing from the chaos every single day. This is why I want the honorable court to come to my rescue,” Ssemalwadde says. There have been claims that the contentious road has existed for over 30 years but Ssemalwadde says this is a lie that court can disprove by a single visit to the scene. The road is clearly a “covid-19 project!”

Up Next

Land grabbers set sights on Kilembe golf course

Don't Miss

Lands minister orders Kiryandongo Sugar limited to stop evicting communities

Click to comment

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Carbon Markets Are Not the Solution: The Failed Relaunch of Emission Trading and the Clean Development Mechanism

Published

2 hours ago

June 21, 2025

witnessradio.org

In light of the growing number of cold and hot wars around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. Meanwhile, supposed solutions, such as carbon emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, continue to be promoted. As Maria Neuhauss argues, this is a bluff with far-reaching consequences.

There was more bad news in January 2025: The European Earth observation program Copernicus and the World Meteorological Organization reported that the global average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This marked the first time the average global temperature exceeded the 1.5-degree target established in the Paris Climate Agreement.

In light of the growing number of crises and conflict hotspots around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. While 1.4 million people demonstrated for more climate protection in Germany in September 2019, according to Fridays for Future, it is now almost impossible to speak of a climate movement. The catalyst for the third German ‘movement cycle’ was undoubtedly the rebranding of Last Generation in December 2024. The group had been decimated by state repression and media agitation in the preceding months. The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement at the beginning of this year made it clear that defenders of the fossil fuel status quo have gained momentum and intend to achieve their goals without compromise. However, as global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the material world follows its own rules, the problem of global warming will likely resurface in the collective consciousness in the foreseeable future. Whether through heat waves, extreme weather events, water shortages, or forest fires. The question is whether and what new answers and approaches a reinvigorated climate movement will develop if it does not limit itself to ‘solidarity prepping’ and actually wants to influence the course of events.

Central to this is not only resolute resistance against fossil inertia forces, but also testing the actions of liberal actors. Although they acknowledge the problem of climate change and claim to want to solve it, the measures they take are inadequate at best or, at worst, create new profit opportunities for the industries that must be phased out. This is far from a comprehensive solution to the ecological crisis, which encompasses more than just climate change. Emission trading and the associated offset mechanisms that are part of the international climate negotiations are one example that illustrates this well.

‘Climate math’ of flexible mechanisms

Emission trading is based on the idea that greenhouse gas emissions are still possible but must be justified with corresponding ‘pollution rights.’ The number of certificates is limited and should decrease over time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Emission trading provides fundamental flexibility by allowing certificates to be bought and sold. Ultimately, this is intended to achieve the most cost-efficient climate protection possible because emission-reducing measures are expected to be implemented first where they can be done quickly and cheaply. This allows one to profit from selling unused emission allowances to other actors who initially shy away from such measures. These actors must buy the allowances until the increased prices resulting from the shortage make emission-reducing measures unavoidable. At least, that’s the theory.

Emission trading is closely linked to the concept of climate neutrality, which plays a central role in climate policy. Greenhouse gas emissions are offset by preventing emissions, using natural carbon sinks, or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The trick to this ‘climate math’ is that, as long as emissions are compensated for, they do not count, even if greenhouse gases continue to be released into the air. These compensation measures are called ‘offsets.’

The idea that not all emissions must be reduced but can, in principle, be bought out of this obligation is based on the global inequalities that have developed historically and that fundamentally structured the first global climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. In line with the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ approach, the protocol only required industrialized countries to reduce emissions because they were mainly responsible for the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), industrialized countries could partially buy their way out of this responsibility by financing emissions-reduction measures in developing and emerging countries. The CDM has therefore been described as a modern “indulgence trade” (Altvater & Brunnengräber, 2008). This allowed industrialized countries to reconcile their energy production methods with the need for climate protection while outsourcing conflicts over the energy transition, such as land use, to the Global South (Bauriedl, 2016).

Social and environmental shortcomings of the CDM

From a climate protection perspective, however, it only makes sense to include emission reductions in developing and emerging countries in the emissions balance of industrialized countries if the investments actually help reduce emissions – that is, if the projects would not have been realized without investments from the Global North. Conversely, if projects under the CDM are not additional, such as if a dam would have been built without investments from the Global North, companies in industrialized countries can claim emission credits without actually helping to reduce emissions. This is because the emissions would have been avoided anyway. This would result in an overall increase in emissions.

In fact, the additionality of many projects financed under the CDM has been questioned over the years (Öko-Institut, 2016). However, less attention has been paid to the fact that CDM projects have repeatedly led to the displacement of local people and land grabbing. For example, a reforestation project in the Kachung Central Forest Reserve in Uganda displaced many neighboring villagers who used to farm and graze their cattle there. Plagued by food insecurity, hunger, and poverty, the population was denied access to the land when CDM-approved plantations were established, further worsening their situation. The monoculture plantations also had negative ecological consequences (Carbon Market Watch, 2018). Thus, the CDM perpetuated colonial conditions on several levels. The mechanism ended with the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2020. However, credits issued beforehand can still be used under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Price incentives instead of bans

A critical review of emission trading is also urgently needed. It is failing as a suitable means of climate protection on several levels. For example, in the case of the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the continued generous allocation of free certificates, particularly to energy-intensive industries, protects those responsible for high CO₂ emissions from strict requirements. Additionally, the emission trading approach suffers from the fact that it is unclear whether, or to what extent, the price of emissions certificates influences investment decisions in favor of climate protection. According to various studies, the price would need to be between EUR 140 and 6,000 per ton of CO₂ to achieve the 1.5-degree target (IPCC, 2018).

However, local industry is already complaining about excessively high electricity prices (the average certificate price in 2024 was €65 per ton of CO₂), causing the government to worry about the location’s attractiveness. Given this, can we really expect politicians to force energy-intensive industries to do more to protect the climate with much higher certificate prices? Ultimately, this reveals a fundamental flaw in emission trading: its indirect effect. Instead of using targets and bans, the idea is to persuade companies to cut emissions through price incentives. However, this approach puts climate protection in the hands of actors who primarily follow the profit motive and do not necessarily translate the price signal into climate protection measures. This explains why companies enrich themselves from emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism wherever possible (CE Delft, 2021).

For those who design and control emission trading systems, the aforementioned criticisms are merely one reason to continue supporting and refining the chosen method. This is also true for the EU, which, after a period during which emission trading was considered ineffective due to low prices, reinvigorated the system at the end of the 2010s. For instance, the EU introduced the market stability reserve. The goal is to maintain public confidence in the effectiveness of this instrument because it is the global climate protection tool. However, evaluations of its effectiveness are rare and provide little cause for optimism. According to an evaluation of various studies, the EU ETS achieves only 0 to 1.5% emission reductions per year (Green, 2021).

History and responsibility are being erased

This makes the ongoing negotiations at UN climate conferences concerning the implementation of global emission trading and a new Clean Development Mechanism all the more critical. In addition to the question of how financially weak countries will be compensated for climate-related damage and losses, the annual COPs primarily address Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement. Article 6 regulates international cooperation, i.e., the extent to which a country can count mitigation measures or emission avoidance elsewhere in its climate balance. Last year’s COP29 in Baku further advanced the operationalization of this article. Based on this, old CDM projects can now be transferred to the new Sustainable Development Mechanism under certain conditions. However, the first project to clear this hurdle reportedly reported emission reductions up to 26 times higher than expected based on scientific evaluation (Mulder, 2025).

Despite urgent warnings, world climate conferences seem determined to repeat past mistakes. The focus is on profit. As Tamra Gilbertson summed up in an interview with Chris Lang, the climate is the last priority. After all, trade processes will incur deductions in the future that will flow into the international adaptation fund. However, according to Gilbertson, this is also due to the fact that the climate conferences have failed to reach viable agreements on financing climate damage and adaptation measures in poorer countries thus far. Instead, emission trading is expected to deliver the necessary funds. “This is where common but differentiated responsibilities are eradicated. History and responsibility are erased, and capitalism in the form of carbon markets takes its place” (Lang, 2024).

While these processes are difficult for the public to understand, the escalating climate crisis requires critical attention more than ever. The problems associated with emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism urgently need to be exposed as distractions from the real task at hand: rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Govt launches Central Account for Busuulu to protect tenants from evictions

Published

2 hours ago

June 21, 2025

witnessradio.org

In a bid to shield lawful tenants from arbitrary evictions and resolve long-standing land conflicts, Lands Minister Judith Nabakooba has announced the establishment of a centralized government account where tenants can deposit nominal ground rent, locally known as busuulu.

The move, she said, is a direct response to complaints raised by tenants during President Yoweri Museveni’s recent tour of the Buganda region, where multiple communities voiced frustration over landlords who are either absent, untraceable, or outright refuse to accept rent payments.

Speaking to the press on Saturday, Nabakooba said the government account now offers tenants a legal channel to fulfill their obligations—effectively eliminating the loophole used by some landlords to accuse tenants of non-payment and justify evictions.

“Government remains committed to securing the rights of bibanja holders through lawful means,” Nabakooba said. “The public should not be misled by political messages that discourage participation in these programs.”

She stressed that lawful and bona fide occupants, commonly referred to as bibanja holders, are protected under Uganda’s Constitution and Land Act, and cannot be legally evicted as long as they pay their annual ground rent.

New Legal Backing and Clear Fee Structure

The new system is backed by an amendment to Statutory Instrument No. 55 of 2011, now updated as Statutory Instrument No. 2 of 2025, which outlines the fixed ground rent rates tenants must pay based on location:

Cities – Shs 50,000
Municipalities – Shs 40,000
Town Councils – Shs 30,000
Town Boards – Shs 20,000
Rural Areas – Shs 5,000

Nabakooba clarified that these rates are standardized and non-negotiable, emphasizing that busuulu is not subject to arbitrary pricing by landlords. The fees have remained unchanged since their introduction in 2011.

See also Canada Launches New Selection Categories For Express Entry

Certificates of Occupancy and Digital Access

To strengthen tenant security and provide legal recognition, the minister encouraged bibanja holders to apply for Certificates of Occupancy, documents that officially confirm their right to occupy and use the land.

So far, the ministry has mapped more than 96,000 bibanja across several districts, and over 500 certificates have already been issued in Mubende, Mityana, Kassanda, Kiboga, and Gomba.

“This effort is not just about securing tenure,” Nabakooba noted. “It’s about giving rural tenants the confidence to invest, farm, and participate meaningfully in the market economy.”

To enhance transparency and public access, the Ministry of Lands has also launched an online portal and mobile app, where tenants can:

Verify the status of their Certificate of Occupancy
Check the identity and details of the registered landowner
Confirm whether the land they occupy is formally registered

The digital system is part of a broader government strategy to curb land fraud, prevent illegal sales, and guard against evictions—especially in cases where land is sold without the knowledge of long-standing tenants.

Bridging the Landlord-Tenant Divide

Nabakooba also called on landlords to work with government efforts rather than resist them. She acknowledged the strained relationship between landlords and tenants in many parts of Uganda but urged both parties to see these reforms as a path toward harmony and fairness.

“This is not about taking land away from landlords,” she explained. “It is about creating a transparent system where both landlords and tenants benefit, and land-related violence is minimized.”

The centralized busuulu collection initiative aims to deter unscrupulous evictions, encourage documentation of land relationships, and reduce tensions—particularly with newer landlords unfamiliar with traditional land use agreements.

See also Lil Uzi Vert Teases Release Of Eternal Atake 2 With Album Trailer Shoot

As land remains a sensitive and politically charged issue in Uganda, especially in the Buganda region, government efforts like this one are seen as key to reducing conflict and promoting economic security for millions of rural families.

The Ministry says more sensitization campaigns will follow to help both tenants and landlords understand the new system, how to access the digital platforms, and the legal safeguards now in place.

Source: pressug.com

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Despite harsh repression, opposition to the EACOP pipeline in Uganda remains strong

Published

1 week ago

June 12, 2025

witnessradio.org

On March 19, 2025, student members of the Justice Movement Uganda, including Ibrahim Mpiima (left), protest in the streets of Kampala against the EACOP oil project and its consequences for the climate and local populations. (Bruce Nahabwe)

“We will keep protesting until our demands are met. This project isn’t sustainable. The world is moving towards renewable energy, and Uganda should follow suit,” says Ibrahim Mpiima, team leader of Justice Movement Uganda, a student-led protest group of around a hundred members opposing the East African Crude Oil Pipeline Project (EACOP)—the world’s longest heated oil pipeline.

“We protest whenever we can. The only thing holding us back is money. But as soon as we raise enough, we make banners, buy disposable mobile phones, secure safe houses in case things go wrong—and then we go.” This local group is part of a broader movement, StopEACOP, a coalition of international NGOs that joined forces “for greater solidarity, visibility and funding,” explains the student from Kyambogo University in Kampala.

Despite all the precautions taken by Ibrahim Mpiima and around 30 of his fellow students, he was arrested at the demonstration on 19 March. Taken by force with three other activists to the capital’s high-security prison, he was beaten and tortured before ultimately being released on 3 April. In a story published on social media, Mpiima also accuses security agents of raping him during his detention.

Martha Amviko, an activist with Extinction Rebellion, was also at the protest. “We wanted to march to Parliament to hand in our petition demanding an end to the project. But no sooner had we unfurled our banners than the police appeared. I managed to escape, but not everyone was so lucky. Once they take you away in the police vans, you know you’re going to be badly beaten. The violence is systematic.”

Although protests began several years ago, over the past year around 100 people have been arrested and threatened with prosecution in Uganda for taking part in peaceful demonstrations against oil projects backed by the government.

The EACOP pipeline is expected to stretch approximately 1,400 kilometres, running from Murchison Falls National Park in Uganda to the port of Tanga in Tanzania. It will transport oil from 400 wells in the Tilenga and Kingfisher fields to the coast, where it can be exported to international markets. An estimated 246,000 barrels of oil are expected to flow through the pipeline each day over its projected 25-year operational lifespan.

Presented to the public as opportunities for development, these projects are backed by the governments of Uganda and Tanzania, along with oil giants TotalEnergies and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC). Initially estimated at US$3.5 billion in 2020, costs have continued to climb. Both countries hope the pipeline will generate substantial revenue and create jobs, both during construction and for ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure.

In a country like Uganda, where per capita income is around US$1,000 per year, the government is banking on oil wealth to lift the nation out of poverty. “We believe this will serve as a catalyst for economic growth,” said Robert Kasande, an official at Uganda’s Ministry of Energy, during the signing ceremony in 2021.

The human cost of pipeline construction

On the ground, however, some residents are facing serious disruptions to their lives and livelihoods. One of them is Geoffrey Byakagaba, a 45-year-old farmer and father of eight, who was stripped of part of his land to make way for the project. “In 2017, Total took ownership of our land in the village. There were several types of compensation on offer. I chose the ‘land for land’ option. They took my land, but to this day, I haven’t been compensated,” he says.

Byakagaba still lives in Kasenyi, in Uganda’s Buliisa district, where the town is currently preparing to host a processing plant for the Tilenga project. He says his standard of living has dropped significantly. “Before the project, I used to grow cassava and sweet potatoes. We ate what we needed and sold the rest. I had 20 to 25 animals—cows and goats. Today, I’m down to just about ten, and my harvest barely feeds the family.”

Due to this loss of income, Byakagaba had to move his children to different schools. “They’re still in school, but in neighbourhoods we’re not happy with.” Since then, he has been surviving by doing odd jobs and selling what he catches fishing. Still, compared to other residents of Kasenyi, he considers himself fortunate. “Luckily, I didn’t live on the land I farmed, so I still have somewhere to stay. That’s not the case for everyone.” He adds: “And I didn’t accept their money. Total’s compensation would never have allowed me to buy land. They offered just 3.5 million shillings per hectare [around €850], but today, buying a hectare around here costs between 10 and 15 million [€2,500 to €3,500]. I would have been ruined. Some people were.”

Geoffrey Byakagaba is the fifth generation of his family to live on this land. For him, it holds far more than just market value.

“This is where I grew up. I inherited nine hectares from my parents, but now I have less than half of that left. If I were to die today, my children would be landless. I’m not just fighting for my rights, but also to leave something behind for my children.”

In April 2021, frustrated by the situation, he decided to file a land-grabbing lawsuit in the High Court of Masindi, seeking fair compensation from the developers of the EACOP project. As he told Equal Times, he was soon labelled a saboteur—not only by the project’s backers but also by the Ugandan authorities—for daring to protest and for speaking to Italian journalist Federica Marsi. Marsi was arrested shortly thereafter, along with Ugandan human rights defender Maxwell Atuhura.

As of 2025, according to Geoffroy Byakagaba, the situation remains unchanged and he is still waiting for compensation. He is not alone. Byakagaba is one of an estimated 118,000 people who have been fully or partially displaced due to the Tilenga and EACOP projects.

One of them is the grandmother of activist Ibrahim Mpiima. “She was evicted from her land in Hoima, so she came to live with us in Kampala. With the compensation she received, she couldn’t afford to buy any land. Because of that, she never felt at peace. And now she has passed away,” says the young man. It was this experience that prompted him to get involved in the campaign against the project while still a student. “At the time, I didn’t know much about EACOP, but seeing what happened to my grandmother made me want to understand it better. Then I realised that most people know nothing about the project or its consequences. Some even believe it’s a development scheme that will lift Uganda out of poverty—when in reality, huge numbers of people have lost their land. We have to fight this misinformation,” he says angrily.

Opponents of the project face harsh repression

Even before the project was officially approved, anti-EACOP mobilisation had already begun to take shape nationally. The movement went global in 2018, coinciding with the major student protests led by Fridays For Future. The world began to take notice of EACOP and its alarming scale—the fifteen protected areas that it will cut through, its proximity to the Great Lakes (Lake Albert and Lake Victoria), one of Africa’s most important sources of fresh water, and its massive projected carbon footprint: 34 million tonnes of CO² per year, compared to Uganda’s annual emissions of just 5 million tonnes. All these reasons have led scientists to describe the project as a ‘carbon bomb’.

In Uganda, authorities have responded in a press release issued by the Ugandan oil authority by describing the international protest movement #StopEacop as a misguided opposition movement bordering on racism and colonialism. According to an investigation by the British media outlet DeSmog, TotalEnergies reportedly hired a South African public relations agency to “squash all the negative PR” surrounding the oil projects. To achieve this, a full-scale campaign has been launched both on the streets and across social media.

For Dickens Kamugisha, CEO of the non-profit AFIEGO (Africa Institute for Energy Governance), which has been tracking the EACOP case for years, this comes as no surprise. “Unfortunately, we have both a weak judicial system and a government that uses the police to punish community members who speak out. Many people have been arrested, intimidated and imprisoned.”

“Here, if you oppose what the government and the company (TotalEnergies, editor’s note) are doing, you become the enemy. And once you’re in their sights, you have to face the consequences.”

Ibrahim Mpiima has always been aware of the risks, having already been arrested once in 2023. “It’s our responsibility. I’m afraid of ending up in prison, of being beaten. I’m really afraid. But if we, the people who are informed, don’t protest, then we will have betrayed all those who believe in us,” he told Equal Times a few days before the demonstrations in March. Reached again by phone after his release from detention, where he endured torture, he said the ordeal had taken its toll: “I feel depressed. I haven’t fully recovered physically or mentally. The feeling is still fresh in my mind, as if it happened yesterday.”

Martha Amviko was also arrested in August 2024 and spent two weeks in prison. “They took us to Luzira, the high-security prison. They put me in the same cell as criminals, people who had committed murder, even though I was being charged with disturbing the public order,” she recalls. “It was overcrowded. From time to time, the guards would call us into their offices where they beat us and did everything to break our spirit.” Despite this ordeal, she insists, “I’d rather die than leave things as they are today. The people building this pipeline will be dead in 20 to 30 years. We are the generation who will have to live with their decisions—us and our children. We cannot give up the fight.”

Indeed, on 23 April, despite the ongoing repression, another demonstration was held in Kampala. Eleven activists were arrested. At the time of writing, they remain behind bars in Luzira high-security prison.

This article has been translated from French by Brandon Johnson

Source:Equal Times