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.”
