By Witness Radio team.

Under the leadership of the Ministry of Lands, Housing, and Urban Development (MLHUD), and in partnership with Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) led by Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM), a crucial final review of the National Land Policy (NLP) 2013 is taking place in Kampala.

The Consultative event is a unique and empowering opportunity for all land actors to actively contribute to shaping Uganda’s land governance framework. It seeks to engage CSOs in shaping reforms in the much-awaited National Land Policy, addressing pressing land-related concerns such as land grabbing, promoting equity in land access, and enhancing strategies for sustainable land management.

The land ministry is expected to present a revised 2024 draft of the basis for discussion and obtaining valuable input from land actors and PELUM Uganda members to boost the policy framework.

Uganda first adopted the National Land Policy in 2013 to ensure the efficient, equitable, and optimal utilization of land and land-based resources for national development. Grounded in principles drawn from the 1995 Constitution and other macro-policy frameworks such as Uganda Vision 2040 and the National Development Plan (NDP), the NLP has served as a comprehensive guideline for Uganda’s land ownership and management.

With a decade of implementation behind it, the Ministry of Lands, Housing, and Urban Development is now reviewing the policy to integrate emerging trends and challenges. This review is crucial as it will ensure the policy’s relevance in the evolving land governance landscape, directly impacting your daily lives. The consultation process underscores the government’s unwavering commitment to inclusive decision-making by involving civil society and key stakeholders in policy formulation, ensuring everyone’s voice is heard and valued.

The event will be broadcast live on Witness Radio. To listen live, download the Witness Radio App from the Play Store or visit our website, www.witnessradio.org.

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, experts, investors 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

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.”