By Witness Radio team.

The Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has rejected a request by the Tanzanian government to dismiss an appeal filed by four East African civil society organizations (CSOs) seeking compliance with the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) with regional and international human rights standards.

Tanzania’s Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Mark Mulwambo, requested the judges dismiss the Appeal, arguing that the record of proceedings from the hearings held at the First Instance Division was missing. The record of proceedings includes the CSOs and respondents’ submissions. He added that, without it, the judges at the Appellate Division could not determine whether the First Instance Court erred in the ruling that they made.

However, the court could not grant his request. Instead, it ordered the four CSOs that filed the Appeal to file supplementary information so that the judges could hear the case.

The Appeal will be heard by a panel of judges from the Appellate Division of the EACJ, including Justice Nestor Kayobera, the division’s president; Justice Anita Mugeni, the Vice President; Justice Kathurima M’Inot; Justice Cheboriona Barishaki; and Justice Omar Othman Makungu. These judges, with their expertise in regional and international law, will review the Appeal and make a final decision.

The Appeal was filed by four CSOs, including the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) from Uganda, the Centre for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT) from Uganda, the Natural Justice (NJ) from Kenya, and the Centre for Strategic Litigation (CSL) from Tanzania, in December 2023. This was in response to the dismissal of their case, which sought compliance with the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) with regional and international human rights standards, by judges at the First Instance Division of the EACJ in November 2023.

During the dismissal, the court ruled that the applicants filed the petition out of time, stating that the petitioners should have filed the petition as early as 2017 instead of 2020. The court also ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, meaning it did not have the legal authority to decide on this matter. These decisions were based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.

The CSOs were ordered to file the record of proceedings by Justice Nestor Kayobera by November 29, 2024.

The court session was attended by EACOP-affected communities from both Uganda and Tanzania. Among them was Mr. Gozanga Kyakulubya, an affected person from Kyotera District in Southern Uganda, who traveled to Arusha to participate in the hearing. His personal story underscores the profound impact of the EACOP on the lives of these communities.

He shared his grievance, stating, “I came to the court because I have a lot of pain. My land was taken for the EACOP, and before I was paid, it was fenced off. The government of Uganda also sued me because I rejected the low compensation offered by EACOP. We need at least one court to be fair to EACOP host communities, and we hope the East African Court of Justice will be that court.”

The EACOP has been designed, constructed, financed, and operated through a dedicated Pipeline Company with the same name. The shareholders in EACOP are affiliates of the three upstream joint venture partners: the Uganda National Oil Company (8%), TotalEnergies E&P Uganda (62%), and CNOOC Uganda Ltd (15%), together with the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (15%).

The 1,443km pipeline will eventually transport Uganda’s crude oil from Kabaale—Hoima to the Chongoleani peninsula near Tanga Port in Tanzania.

Climate activists and civil society organizations, however, continue to oppose the project, claiming that it will harm several fragile and protected habitats irreversibly and violate key agreements and treaties.

The potential environmental damage is a cause for concern among these groups.

By Witness Radio team.

The appeal against the dismissal of a lower court case, filed by four East African civil societies seeking compliance with the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) with regional and international human rights standards, is scheduled to be heard today, November 15, 2024, by the Appellate Court of the East Africa Court of Justice. The Appellate Court is the higher court that reviews decisions made by lower courts, and in this Case, it will review the decision of the EACJ’s First Instance Division that dismissed the Case.

The appeal case was filed against the Attorney Generals of Uganda and Tanzania and the East African Community Secretary General (EAC).

The appeal is based on case Reference No. 39 of 2020, which was filed in November 2020 by the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT), Natural Justice (NJ), Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), and Center for Strategic Litigation (CSL) from Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda. The Case asked the EACJ lower court to issue temporary and permanent injunctions to halt the development of the EACOP.

The organizations claimed that the EACOP violates key East African and international treaties and laws, including the East African Community (EAC) Treaty, Protocol for Sustainable Development of the Lake Victoria basin, Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others include the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and the African Convention on Conservation of Natural Resources.

The EACOP has been designed, constructed, financed, and operated through a dedicated Pipeline Company with the same name. The shareholders in EACOP are affiliates of the three upstream joint venture partners: the Uganda National Oil Company (8%), TotalEnergies E&P Uganda (62%), and CNOOC Uganda Ltd (15%), together with the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (15%).

The 1,443km pipeline will eventually transport Uganda’s crude oil from Kabaale—Hoima to the Chongoleani peninsula near Tanga Port in Tanzania.

Climate activists and civil society organizations, however, have opposed the project, claiming that it will harm several fragile and protected habitats irreversibly and violate key agreements and treaties. Furthermore, the project has been linked to several human rights violations, such as land grabs and the imprisonment of project critics.

On November 29, 2023, the EACJ dismissed the Case. The court ruled that the applicants filed the petition out of time, stating that the petitioners should have filed the petition as early as 2017 instead of 2020. The court also ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the Case, meaning it did not have the legal authority to make a decision on this particular matter. These rulings were based on the court’s interpretation of the EAC Treaty and procedural law.

Undeterred by the dismissal of the Case, on December 13, 2023, the four CSOs demonstrated their unwavering commitment to justice by filing an appeal at the East African Court of Justice’s (EACJ) Appellate Division.

Their appeal is meticulously based on the grounds that the court case was timely, given that the applicants (CSOs) became aware of the signing of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) on October 26, 2020, and filed the Case on November 6, 2020, just ten days after gaining knowledge of the IGA.

They argue that the First Instance Division erred in interpreting Article 30 of the EAC Treaty and misapplied procedural law. The CSOs, with their legal expertise, assert that article 30 of the EAC Treaty sets a two-month limitation period for filing cases at the EACJ, starting from the enactment, publication, directive, decision, or action being contested, or, in its absence, from the day it came to the knowledge of the complainant.

The appellants also contend that the court should have recognized that their statement of reference was based on 12 grounds, with only two being challenged by the respondents. They argue that the court should have preserved and heard the remaining ten grounds, even if the preliminary objections on the two were upheld. Furthermore, they assert that the court misinterpreted the evidence, as the affidavits relied upon in resolving the preliminary objections constituted valid evidence, which they argue is a violation of the law on preliminary objections, among other issues.”

In their appeal, which will be heard today, the CSOs ask the Appellate Court to overturn the First Instance Division’s decision to dismiss their EACOP case, return the Case to the First Instance Division for a merits hearing, and return the Case to the First Instance Division for a trial of the remaining aspects for which the governments of Tanzania and Uganda did not raise any preliminary objections.

They also want the First Instance Division’s decision to overturn the awarding of costs decision to the Tanzanian and Ugandan governments and the EAC Secretary General.