Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Oil project-affected persons express disappointment in Uganda judiciary

Published

on

The Tilenga and EACOP oil project-affected households have expressed deep disappointment over the failure of key stakeholders in Uganda’s judicial system to grant them audience to discuss their grievances stemming from a lawsuit filed against them by the government in December 2023.

In a press conference organized at Hotel Africana in Kampala, some members of the 42 of the families sued by the government claimed having travelled from Buliisa district to Kampala with the aim of meeting Norbert Mao, the minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo and the deputy chief justice.

They also intended to meet the principal judge, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and others. Additionally, the households wanted to meet Total Energies’ managing director. However, they were unable to meet any of them, stating that their refusal indicated lack of responsiveness and dialogue on critical issues affecting the rights and livelihoods of project-affected people in the oil region.

According to a one Bamutuleki, one of the affected members, they had written letters to various stakeholders, including the ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the chief justice, deputy chief justice, principal judge, Judicial Service Commission (JSC), and Total Energies, seeking for a meeting to discuss their grievances. However, they were unable to meet any of them for a crucial discussion.

“This lack of interaction leaves us feeling neglected and unheard in our quest for justice and fair treatment in the face of potential evictions related to the oil projects,” Bamutuleki said.

Julius Asiimwe, another oil project-affected person, raised similar concerns about their failure to meet the key stakeholders in the judiciary to address their grievances.

“We are not happy with all these offices. We are aggrieved. We wrote them letters requesting for meetings on specific dates and none of them wrote back to us. Based on the reception we received at the offices we visited, we don’t think that the judiciary understands the implications of its actions on our families, and our children,” Asiimwe said.

The failure to meet any of the officials leaves the future of the affected households in uncertainty after the High court in Hoima gave the government a go-ahead to evict them from their land.

GENESIS

In December 2023, the government filed a lawsuit against the households affected by the Tilenga and East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) projects in Uganda. This was after the affected households had rejected the compensation offered by Total Energies, a French company, which was acquiring the land on behalf of the ministry of Energy, citing it as inadequate, unfair and low.

The affected people said the government valuation did not reflect the value of their land, and the impact of losing their property. They expressed their preference for land in exchange for their property rather than monetary compensation in order to maintain their livelihoods.

Additionally, they claimed it was a violation of Article 26 of the Ugandan Constitution, which protects property rights and ensures fair compensation. However, the rushed court processes led by Justice Jesse Byaruhanga of the High court in Hoima resulted in a judgment against the households within four days of the case being filed, which is arguably one of the fastest court cases to be resolved in Uganda in recent memory.

The court ruling stated that the people’s compensation could be deposited in court and the government could proceed and gain vacant possession of their land.

The affected households did not participate in the court hearing because some of them were even unaware that they had been sued.
According Bamutuleki, other project- affected persons could not travel to the court in Hoima, which was far away from Buliisa, due to the short notice provided for the hearing and their lack of financial resources to cover transportation costs.

“This lack of adequate notice and financial constraints hindered our ability to participate in the legal proceedings and defend our interests,” Bamutuleki pointed out.

Additionally, Bamutuleki stated that they were given a pile of legal documents by the court and no one was there to make the interpretation for them. Most of the project-affected persons are illiterate, a factor that made it harder for them to get a fair hearing.

UNCERTAINTY

Many families say their eviction from land for the Tilenga and East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) projects makes their future unknown given that land is their primary source of income.

While at the press conference, Jelousy Mugisha stated that their daily lives depend on the land for various aspects such as generating income, sending children to school, and accessing medical assistance.

“I have been using my land for many years now to take care of my family because I don’t earn any monthly salary. So, the government giving me money to leave my land and get a smaller one is completely unfair and unconstitutional,” he said.

The families highlighted that they weren’t fighting the government and its projects but only want a fair compensation for their land, which will restore them to their former positions. Mugisha stated that the money the government proposed in compensation for their land is completely low compared to the market prices of the land in the area.

“The size of my land that was acquired is 2.5 acres. The government wants to give me Shs 5 million per acre yet the market price for one acre is Shs 20 million in my area,” Mugisha said.

“If the government really wants the land, let it get us another land equivalent to what we had and we shall agree,” he said.

Dickens Kamugisha, the executive director of the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), an organization that has been supporting the affected families for a long time, expressed deep concern over the plight of the poor families from the oil region who are facing injustices.

He emphasized the importance of all Ugandans to take a keen interest in their struggles, highlighting the broader implications of the government’s actions and court precedents that allow for the violation of constitutional rights and unfair treatment of landowners.

“As these poor families from the oil region suffer injustices today, all Ugandans should take a keen interest in their plight. With courts setting bad precedents that allow the government to violate Article 26 and other human rights provisions of the Ugandan Constitution, where affected landowners are forced to accept low, unfair, and inadequate compensation, and courts deny people fair hearings, any Ugandan could suffer the same fate,” he warned.

Despite facing legal battles, evictions, and disruptions to their livelihoods, these individuals remain resolute in their pursuit of a just resolution to their grievances.

Source: The Observer.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Businesses, banks and activists resist EC plans to strip back human rights legislation

Published

on

Today the European Commission introduced their ‘Omnibus simplification package’ to amend key laws of the EU Green Deal, including CSDDD, CSRD and Taxonomy. The package proposes significant changes, including the removal of civil liability provisions in the CSDDD and removing 80% of companies from scope in the CSRD.

The earlier announcement from the European Commission as well as the leaked draft to reform recently-agreed EU laws such as the CSDDD has already come under attack from businesses, expertsinvestors and activists alike.

The UN Global Compact and companies including Unilever, Vattenfall and Nestlé have also expressed their concern. Nestlé Europe’s Bart Vandewaetere said that it had “been reporting on [environmental impact and human rights issues in the supply chain] ourselves for years. European regulations mean that more companies have to start doing that. That creates a level playing field and we welcome that.”

Former president of Ireland Mary Robinson added: “Von der Leyen’s new Commission’s attempt to eviscerate these sustainability laws must not be agreed by the European Parliament and by the member states.”

The European Banking Federation warned that weakening the CSRD could create challenges for banks, echoing concerns from more than 160 investors who cautioned that the Omnibus package could harm investment and increase legal uncertainty.

CSOs such as the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ)WWF and the Clean Clothes Campaign have also sharply criticised the proposal. The ECCJ writes the proposal is “not simplification, but full-scale deregulation designed to dismantle corporate accountability”.

Workers’ organisations and trade unions from garment-producing countries across Asia, Europe and Latin America also opposed the ‘Omnibus’ this week, highlighting the risk the proposal will “exclude most supply chain workers” including 49 million home workers.

Source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The CSOs’ Appeal to hear the EACOP case on merit is a crucial development, with the ruling now awaited.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

The Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has heard an appeal filed by four civil society organizations (CSOs) challenging the dismissal of their case against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

The appeal, filed by four civil society organizations (CSOs), seeks to reconsider the case on its merits after the First Instance Division of the EACJ dismissed it in November 2023 on procedural grounds.

The case was before Justice Nestor Kayobera, Justice Kathurima M’Inoti, Justice Anita Mugeni, Justice Barishaki Bonny Cheborion, and Justice Omar Othman Makungu.

The East African CSOs, Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT), Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Natural Justice (NJ), and Centre for Strategic Litigation (CSL), argued that the lawsuit was dismissed unfairly and that the First Instance Court had improperly evaluated the evidence before making its ruling.

According to CSOs, the EACOP project, if implemented, could lead to significant environmental damage, endangering local livelihoods, water supplies, and biodiversity. This includes potential oil spills, disruption of ecosystems, and contamination of water sources. They further assert that TotalEnergies, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), and the governments of Tanzania and Uganda failed to provide a sufficient risk assessment for the project and to adhere to international human rights norms.

The EACOP project is a significant pipeline initiative spanning over 1,400 kilometers, designed to transport crude oil from Uganda’s Lake Albert region to the Tanzanian port of Tanga. The project is a joint venture of TotalEnergies and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) in partnership with the governments of Uganda and Tanzania.

During the appeal hearing in Kigali, Rwanda, the CSOs’ lawyers, known for their expertise, presented robust arguments against the First Instance Court’s dismissal of the case.

Counsel David Kabanda, one of the CSOs’ lawyers, argued that the First Instance Court had overstepped its role by evaluating evidence when considering the preliminary objection raised by the Tanzanian government, which claimed the case was time-barred. He emphasized that determining a preliminary objection should not require examining evidence.

The CSOs’ legal team also emphasized that the case had been filed promptly under the EAC Treaty, a key legal instrument that allows individuals in East African countries to challenge unlawful acts within two months of their enactment or upon gaining knowledge of such acts.

They also urged that the court should have examined other, non-time-barred portions of the case if a portion of it was dismissed on time-barred grounds.

The CSOs also raised the First Instance Court’s ruling to award costs to the Tanzanian and Ugandan governments and the East African Community Secretary General (EAC). They contended that a decision like this may deter future public interest lawsuits, particularly those involving human rights and the environment, as it could set a precedent of penalizing those who advocate for public welfare.

Lawyer Rugemeleza Nshala cautioned that charging in public interest cases, particularly those involving the environment and human rights, could have a “chilling effect” on those seeking justice. “The case that was filed affects the people, and this is why we have all these people in court today,” he said.

After hearing arguments from both sides, including legal representatives for Uganda, Tanzania, and the EAC Secretary General, the appellate judges reserved their ruling, stating that it would be delivered “on notice.”

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

As Uganda awaits the Energy Efficiency and Conservation law, plans to develop a five-year plan are underway.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

Kampala, Uganda—The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) is developing a comprehensive five-year Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and Plan for Uganda (EECSP). This plan, which is expected to be completed in June 2025, aims to enhance energy efficiency and conservation efforts in Uganda. Uganda has no law governing the manufacture, distribution, and use of clean cooking technologies.

The plan is expected to be aligned with national priorities, foster partnerships, and secure stakeholder buy-in for effective implementation and long-term sustainability.

In Uganda, over 90% of household energy consumption relies on biomass, a practice that is contributing to massive deforestation. This deforestation threatens our natural habitats, worsens climate change, and increases air pollution. To address these challenges, the government wants to improve energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and expand green energy solutions in rural areas, ensuring access to affordable and clean energy.

James Banaabe said that the government, through the Energy Ministry, has hired their firm, Castle Group of Consultants, to develop the strategy. He explained that the goal is to create an actionable plan to enhance energy efficiency across various sectors in Uganda, including industries and buildings.

“We need to develop solutions that help sectors reduce their energy bills while promoting efficiency,” he noted during a consultative meeting attended by key stakeholders, including government agencies, private sector actors, civil society, academia, and end users, which provided active and meaningful insights into the development process.

Funded by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the plan seeks to set realistic, achievable energy efficiency targets across key sectors such as industry, transport, residential, and commercial, identify key areas for improvement, develop an environmental strategy, and recommend actionable measures to enhance energy efficiency and conservation.

Engineer Simon Kalanzi, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Department Commissioner at MEMD, emphasized the crucial role of continuous stakeholder engagement. “The energy efficiency strategy and plan rely on broad stakeholder engagement to ensure inclusivity, relevance, and effective implementation. Your involvement is key to addressing market barriers, sharing knowledge, and building capacity to incorporate local and international expertise,” he stated further.

The strategy will yield significant benefits over the next decade, including a promising future with steady and responsible energy usage across targeted sectors.

David Birimumaaso, a principal officer at MEMD, highlighted that the strategy would support the implementation of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation bill, which is already before Parliament. “This law mandates everyone to be mindful of energy conservation,” he added.

On February 4, 2024, the State Minister for Energy, Hon. Sidronius Opolot, tabled the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Bill, 2024. The bill seeks to regulate energy consumption, curb waste, and promote sustainable cooking technologies. According to the bill, no regulations currently govern the manufacture, distribution, and use of clean cooking technologies.

 

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter