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

By Witness Radio team.

A global report released by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) in collaboration with other organizations has reported that more than 1.1 billion people worldwide— about 23 percent of the global adult population—live under the constant fear of losing their land or homes within the next five years, threatening their livelihoods, food security, and resilience to climate change. 

“Too many people still live with the fear of losing their land and homes, with women and young people remaining among the most excluded—a reality that undermines food security, climate action, and biodiversity protection, and shows why secure land rights are foundational to achieving all three,” says Marcy Vigoda, Director of the International Land Coalition. 

The report, titled “Status of Land Tenure and Governance” (SLTG), was authored by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Land Coalition (ILC), and the French Agricultural Research Organization CIRAD. The report states that, despite progress over the past two decades, only 35 percent of the world’s land has formally documented ownership, tenure, or use rights. 

The report notes that commercial interests constitute a major driver of land insecurity. In addition to large-scale land acquisitions, corporate investments, and financialized shareholding, the report identifies factors such as weak land governance, inadequate recognition of customary tenure systems, and increasing demands for agricultural commodities as contributing to intensified land concentration. These dynamics, particularly evident in the aftermath of the 2008–2009 food and financial crises, have accelerated the transfer of land from smallholders and local communities, exacerbating vulnerabilities among populations lacking secure tenure. 

Lands once considered marginal investment opportunities are now highly sought after for industrial farming, conservation, carbon storage, and other climate-related projects. In some cases, climate mitigation projects such as renewable energy, carbon offset schemes, and biofuel plantations are also increasing pressure on these lands, especially where tenure rights are not legally recognized.

The new report is the first comprehensive global stock take designed to track how land is owned, used, and governed. It complements decades of guidance on implementing the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests (VGGT). It responds to the growing demand to integrate land rights with climate action, gender equality, biodiversity protection, and more.

While international and national policies on land tenure have expanded, the report highlights that implementation remains slow and uneven. Although global frameworks have been widely adopted, the uptake and application of responsible land governance principles remain limited.

Worldwide, governments legally own more than 64 percent of land, including areas under customary systems that often lack formal documentation. A little over a quarter of land is privately owned, while about 10 percent of global land has an unknown tenure status.

The findings also reveal that the top 10 percent of the largest landholders operate about 89 percent of all agricultural land, showing the high concentration of land ownership globally. Secure land tenure enables people to invest in land, improve productivity, protect ecosystems, and strengthen food security.

“Land insecurity is one of the most damaging forms of inequality, paid for in lower productivity, weaker resilience, and poorer nutrition. Secure land tenure enables sustainable investment and is the difference between short-term survival and long-term food security,” FAO Chief Economist Maximo Torero Cullen reveals.

The report highlights persistent gender inequality in land ownership. Globally, women are significantly less likely than men to own or hold secure land rights. In 2024, across 108 countries, 48 percent of men reported owning homes individually or jointly, compared to 40 percent of women. “While rural residents are more likely than urban residents to report ownership, women remain consistently disadvantaged in both settings,” the report notes.

In agriculture, the gender gap is even more pronounced. In 43 out of 49 countries with available data, men in agricultural households are more likely to own or control land. In nearly half of these countries, the gap exceeds 20 percentage points. Evidence from several countries also shows that the gap is particularly large in sole land ownership, while joint ownership arrangements often improve women’s access to land.

Despite growing global attention to land governance, data on land tenure remains limited and politically sensitive. Methodological challenges, capacity limitations, and political sensitivities often reduce the availability and transparency of land tenure data.

According to Sélim Louafi, Deputy Director for Research and Strategy at CIRAD, stronger data systems are essential for better policy decisions. “When we generate evidence with and for all stakeholders, we create the foundation for stronger, more transparent, and more equitable public policies, both nationally and internationally.”

Experts say stronger policies and political commitment are needed to secure land rights for all. The report concludes: “Progress on land tenure and governance requires a stronger, more comprehensive, and better-coordinated approach to change, both within the land sector and in conjunction with global efforts on economic recovery, climate action, biodiversity conservation, and open societies.”