Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Oil-affected residents and civil society organizations reject TotalEnergies’ Tilenga Progress Report, citing unfairness in their operations.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

Residents affected by the Tilenga oil project, along with civil society organisations, have rejected a progress report by TotalEnergies, arguing that the compensation and resettlement processes are unfair and inadequate.

In 2023, Jealous Mugisha Mulimba and 41 other families were sued by the Government of Uganda for refusing the compensation offered for their land and property, which were required for the Tilenga Resettlement Action Plan 5 (RAP 5), part of the broader Tilenga Project.

Mugisha is a smallholder farmer who had been deriving his livelihood from 2.5 acres of land, which he lost to the project.

“That land, however small you may see it, was my only source of income. I didn’t go to school to have a formal job. I squeezed every single bit of money I got from my land, and without it, life is a real struggle,” Mugisha told Witness Radio, visibly heartbroken.

In December 2023, Mugisha’s life and that of his family were thrown into disarray when the government acquired his land for the oil project. He and other affected community members rejected the government’s valuation and compensation offer, arguing it was far too low to sustain their livelihoods.

“For me personally, they wanted to give 5 million shillings per acre, yet land is more valuable in our area, and I had property on it, which I rejected. Many others who refused went through the same,” he said.

As a result, the government, through the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD), sued the project-affected families, requesting the High Court of Hoima to allow it to deposit the compensation into court accounts and to issue demolition orders for the project. The court ruled in favor of the government within just four days of filing the case, a process Mugisha described as rushed and unfair.

“We witnessed one of the quickest court rulings, with the court offering only a single hearing. In fact, the court informed some of our lawyers and community members only two days before the hearing. There was no time to prepare a defense, which caused the community to lose the case.” Mugisha added.

The discovery of oil in Uganda was initially welcomed by host communities and expected to boost local livelihoods and national economic growth. Critics now say the benefits are uneven, with large-scale profits going to the government and multinational companies, while affected residents suffer losses.

“The oil projects have caused a lot of suffering to people; there have been setbacks in their livelihoods because of inadequate compensation accompanied by gross violation of human rights to project critics.” Mugisha adds.

The Tilenga Project is operated by TotalEnergies (56.67%), in partnership with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) (28.33%) and the Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC) (15%). According to TotalEnergies’ report, the project acquired approximately 2,108 acres of land, affecting 4,954 Project-Affected Persons (PAPs). Of these, 205 (4%) experienced physical displacement requiring housing, while 4,749 (96%) experienced economic displacement, primarily due to the loss of livelihoods.

The report, prepared by Land and People Planning Ltd. and Interface Consulting Ltd., assesses RAPs 2–5 and benchmarks them against the project’s Land Acquisition and Resettlement Framework (LARF). It claims 99% compliance with compensation and resettlement, and 100% adherence to responsible resettlement principles.

While TotalEnergies claims 99% compliance with compensation and resettlement, residents like Mugisha highlight that on the ground, significant disparities persist, with many unable to sustain their livelihoods despite official reports.

Victims of the project say these exist only on paper, while the reality on the ground is very different.

“Sometimes they write good reports, but when you go to the ground, that’s when you realize their falseness. If the processes were fair, why did the government have to sue families instead of settling this matter in a way that benefits both sides?” Mugisha, who currently lives on clan land after the eviction, told a Witness Radio journalist, adding, “I wouldn’t be struggling at my age to find a place to live and food for my family.”

Efforts to get a comment from Total Energies on these grievances went unanswered. However, the Ministry of Energy states that the government and project developers are actively monitoring RAP implementation to ensure compliance.

“The latest social performance updates on land compensation under RAPs 2–5 indicate that the overwhelming majority of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) have successfully received their entitlements and, where applicable, have been resettled.” Dr. Patricia Litho, the Assistant Commissioner for Communication at the Ministry of Energy, wrote to Witness Radio.

Dr. Litho added that the remaining 1% of cases involve disputes such as ownership disagreements, ongoing succession processes, or refusal to accept the compensation.

About groups like Mugisha’s who refused compensation, Dr. Litho added that, “On the matter of individuals who challenged the valuation of their assets and chose not to accept the compensation offered—including the example you referenced in Buliisa District—the law provides a clear mechanism for resolving such disputes. Where communities cannot reach an agreement, the government may deposit the assessed compensation amount with the courts, allowing the project to proceed while preserving the rights of affected persons to pursue legal redress. The individuals in such circumstances remain fully entitled to challenge the valuation through the courts, and the judiciary ultimately determines the appropriate outcome.”

However, Margret Kemigisa, Legal Officer working with the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), highlights that many families affected by oil projects such as Tilenga continue to struggle to access justice, a claim disputed by Dr. Litho, who asserts that multiple grievance redress mechanisms are in place to address concerns raised by PAPs:

“Before any matter reaches court, the resettlement process under the Tilenga Project provides several engagement and grievance resolution mechanisms for PAPs established under the Resettlement Action Plans. Through these mechanisms, PAPs can raise concerns about asset valuation, compensation amounts, or any other resettlement-related issues. However, some PAPs may still choose not to accept the compensation offered even after the grievance mechanisms have been exhausted. In such circumstances, the government must balance two important considerations: respecting the rights of the affected persons while also ensuring that nationally significant projects proceed in accordance with the law.” Dr. Litho revealed.

But Civil society groups are raising concerns about the independence of Ugandan courts, arguing that justice for people experiencing poverty is often delayed or denied. After what was described as a “quick ruling” against Mugisha and the 41 other households, the residents and their lawyers filed an appeal on December 22, 2023, at the Court of Appeal. However, the case has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

“We have written three letters requesting that the appeal be fixed for a hearing. However, none of these letters has received a response so far. Generally, the hearing of appeals, especially time-sensitive cases such as this, has been very slow and frustrating for PAPs. Meanwhile, the cases filed by the government seeking to evict PAPs are heard expeditiously.” Adds Margret Kemigisa of AFIEGO, which is supporting the legal action of the affected families.

When asked about the status of the case involving the 42 households, the Judiciary spokesperson, His Worship Mawanda James, declined to comment, saying the matter is still before the court. “The matter is still in court. I can’t comment,” he said in a reply to Witness Radio.

AFIEGO also criticized the resettlement process for relying on intimidation, division of families, and coercion, which forced some families to accept inadequate compensation.

“The Tilenga project’s compulsory land acquisition processes have been marked by delayed, inadequate, and unfair compensation, as well as the use of threats, division of families, intimidation, and other tactics to coerce many low-income families to accept inadequate and unfair compensation.

As a result, many affected households are unhappy with the project, and call it a curse,” a May 17, 2024, statement by AFIEGO titled,” Last Man Fighting: Statement on Eviction Mr. Fred Balikenda and His Family for Total’s Tilenga Oil Project stated.

Now, as Total celebrates what it calls a milestone in involuntary resettlement, the fate of those who were supposed to benefit from the project remains uncertain. For Jealous Mugisha and others, it is now clear that both the government and multinational corporations are primarily profit-oriented

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The untold struggle of community land right defenders in eastern DRC’s three-decade war.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

“My land is among the properties currently being used by rebels. I had purchased a plot right along Route 2, but an M23 officer is now renting it out to traders. He collects the fees for my own land while I suffer here in hiding. I cannot even call him, for fear of exposing myself to further danger.”

These are the words of a community land-right defender from North Kivu Province, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), living in hiding after becoming a target for defending community land rights.

According to the defender, defending land rights has come at an enormous cost. He has lost access to his property, his livelihood, and his freedom of movement. A piece of land he legally acquired is now under the control of others, and he remains unable to challenge their occupation because doing so could put his life at risk.

His story reflects a growing reality across eastern DRC, where decades of conflict have made land one of the most contested resources. As armed groups expand territorial control, communities say homes, farms, grazing areas, and commercial properties are being seized, leaving millions displaced and land rights defenders increasingly vulnerable.

Eastern DRC has endured armed conflict for more than three decades. The violence has involved government forces and multiple armed groups competing for political influence, territory, and control over valuable resources.

Since its resurgence in 2021, the March 23 Movement (M23), operating under the AFC/M23 coalition, has captured large areas of North and South Kivu, some of the country’s most strategic and resource-rich provinces.

According to the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s July 2025 report, the control of large parts of North and South Kivu by AFC/M23 secured access to mineral-rich territories and fertile land, while increasing Rwanda’s influence in the DRC.

The report highlights the strategic importance of territorial control in the conflict, where access to natural resources, productive land, and key areas is closely linked to armed groups’ expansion and regional influence.

For communities living in these territories, territorial control has brought displacement, insecurity, and loss of ancestral land.

According to the United Nations, more than seven million people are internally displaced across the Democratic Republic of Congo, making it one of the world’s largest displacement crises.

Many displaced people who spoke to the Witness Radio team say that when fighting forces drive them from their homes, their property often becomes vulnerable to occupation.

“Many people are suffering in silence. Throughout the territory, homes, fields, and plots are being seized by force while people are being driven out so that others can settle in undisturbed. Rwandans are leaving their homes to occupy local owners’ properties. We are helpless and suffering in silence,” he said.

Another defender, whom Witness Radio identifies as Mwamba for security reasons, says his family’s struggle over land has lasted for generations and has been shaped by armed conflict.

Mwamba says his father, a traditional chief, farmer, and landowner in North Kivu, was targeted during the years of rebellion and that their family land, measuring approximately 240 hectares, was taken over.

Before the land was seized, the family ran a farm with livestock, including about 550 cattle, 250 sheep and goats, and 50 pigs.

According to Mwamba, the livestock were looted, houses were destroyed, and the farm was occupied by armed actors linked to the AFC/M23 movement during successive periods of conflict.

“My whole life, there has been conflict over our family’s property. Since the 1990s, we have never been able to use our land in peace,” he said.

The human cost has been greater than the economic losses, leading to the deaths of his family members. He recalls, “In 1997, my three older brothers were captured on the road and killed by the same group that had grabbed our land. When I later tried to organize my family to reclaim what belongs to us, I received death threats too. I had to flee because I believed I would be next.”

Today, his family lives in poverty while watching others profit from land they say has belonged to them for generations.

“All family members left to save their lives. The farm is still in their hands, and we cannot even approach it,” he said.

Also, human rights lawyer Ngoma, whose real name is withheld for safety reasons, says defending victims of land grabbing and other abuses became a threat to his own survival.

For more than a decade, Ngoma represented marginalized communities seeking justice for land seizures, killings, sexual violence, torture, and other abuses committed during the conflict.

But when M23 fighters took control of his area, his work put him in danger.

“I felt constantly at risk, to the point of receiving death threats from the very people against whom we were litigating. I faced numerous threats to my own safety and that of my family. I was forced to change my phone numbers, cut communication with people, and I could no longer move freely as a citizen,” he told Witness Radio in an exclusive interview.

Like many other human rights defenders, Ngoma eventually fled and went into hiding for safety, but the conflict and its far-reaching costs to victims remained. His departure disrupted his life and left many victims without legal representation when they needed it most. For communities whose land had been seized or whose relatives had been killed, lawyers and land defenders are often the only link to justice. When they are forced into exile or silence through threats and intimidation, victims are left with few avenues to challenge abuses, document violations, or pursue accountability.

“When the conflict escalated, that marked the beginning of my ordeal. My life was thrown into turmoil. I was forced to flee and constantly protect my family from possible attacks,” he added.

His experience reflects a wider pattern across eastern DRC, where attacks on lawyers, land defenders, and human rights activists have weakened community efforts to resist land dispossession and seek justice. As those documenting abuses are driven into hiding, armed groups tighten their control over contested territories, while many displaced families are left without the legal and human rights support needed to reclaim their land or defend their rights.

Residents say that when armed groups capture territory and civilians flee, abandoned properties can become vulnerable to occupation. Families who later attempt to return often face intimidation, threats, or the inability to reclaim their land.

Researchers widely agree that the conflict in eastern DRC has multiple overlapping drivers, including competition for political power, ethnic tensions, control of mineral resources, weak governance, and territorial control. Within this broader conflict, land remains a critical source of both livelihoods and strategic influence, making it a frequent point of contestation between armed groups and displaced communities.

Dr. Deborah S. Rogers, the International Outreach Coordinator for the coalition Mobilization for the Safeguarding of Congolese Sovereignty and Autonomy (MOSSAC), told Witness Radio that, in her view, Rwanda’s involvement in eastern DRC is closely linked to territorial expansion.

According to Dr. Rogers, Rwanda’s limited land area and growing population have increased the importance of securing additional territory. She argued that in areas under the control of the AFC/M23, civilians are frequently driven from their homes through violence and intimidation. When displaced families later attempt to return, she said, many discover that their land has already been occupied by people she identifies as Rwandans.

Human rights organizations have repeatedly raised concerns about attacks against those documenting abuses and supporting affected communities.

Between November 2025 and February 2026, several human rights defenders in North and South Kivu were reportedly targeted because of their work, according to the United Nations.

In January 2026, UN human rights experts expressed concern over allegations of attempted killings, kidnappings, torture, sexual violence, and death threats targeting defenders and their families.

The attacks have forced many defenders to choose between abandoning their work and risking their lives.

Despite years of displacement and violence, many affected families still hope to return to their ancestral lands.

“The land belongs to our families. We have lost so much, but we have not lost hope. One day, we believe justice will allow us to return,” Mwemba told our team.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Ugandan farmers take TotalEnergies’ pipeline to UK court

Published

on

Police apprehend a Ugandan activist during a protest against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) plans in Kampala, Uganda, on 15 September, 2023. © Reuters

Four Ugandan farmers filed a case against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) at the UK’s High Court on Tuesday, seeking to have Ugandan constitutional, environmental and climate law applied to EACOP Ltd, the UK-registered company financing the project

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Lawyers Move to Court to Stop New Luxury Tourism Projects in Maasai Mara

Published

on

A coalition of regional legal and environmental organisations has moved to court seeking to halt the approval and development of new luxury tourism facilities in the Maasai Mara National Reserve, arguing that the projects threaten one of the world’s most important wildlife ecosystems.

The petition, filed before the Environment and Land Court, seeks orders stopping further construction of high-end tourist accommodation within the reserve pending the determination of the case.

Those behind the petition include East Africa Law Society, Natural Justice, JustAct and Africa Centre for Peace and Human Rights, who have sued several government agencies and private investors involved in the developments.

Among the respondents are Marriott International, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Minor Hotels, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Narok County Government.

Narok Governor Patrick Ole Ntutu and the Maasai Mara National Reserve date in Narok County.
Photo| County Government of Narok / Maasai Mara National Reserve.

The petitioners contend that approvals granted for the tourism developments violated constitutional and environmental safeguards, arguing that the projects were allowed within ecologically sensitive areas meant primarily for wildlife conservation.

Court documents further claim that the developments sit close to critical wildlife habitats and migration routes linking the Maasai Mara ecosystem with Serengeti National Park.

This, according to them, potentially disrupts the annual wildebeest migration that attracts thousands of tourists every year.

They have asked the court to certify the matter as one raising substantial constitutional questions and refer it to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a five-judge bench to hear the case.

The latest legal challenge comes months after the planned opening of the luxury Ritz-Carlton safari camp sparked public debate, with conservationists raising concerns that the facility could interfere with wildlife movement near the Sand River.

At the time, the Kenya Wildlife Service dismissed claims circulating online that the camp had blocked the wildebeest migration, describing videos shared on social media as misleading.

“The Ritz-Carlton safari camp is situated within a designated tourism investment low-use zone, as provided for in the Maasai Mara National Reserve Management Plan, 2023-2032,” KWS said at the time.

The agency also maintained that camps established along the Mara, Sand and Talek rivers have historically coexisted with wildlife movements without obstructing migration.

Source: kenyans.co.ke

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates