Civil society lawyers are calling upon the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) to re-hear a case challenging the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project, indicating that the preliminary dismissal disregarded key issues of law. The case, dismissed on technical grounds by the First Instance Division of the EACJ, is being appealed with civil society actors (CSOs) looking to receive a fair hearing on their case on its merits.

The appeal was yesterday heard in Kigali, Rwanda, by the Appellate Division of the EACJ. The court, composed of Justices Nestor Kayobera, Kathurima M’Inoti, Anita Mugeni, Barishaki Bonny Cheborion, and Omar Othman Makungu, attracted a colorful crowd of onlookers. These included representatives of the CSOs, their attorneys, EACOP officials, those affected by the oil project from Uganda, the legal representatives of the Ugandan and Tanzanian government, and the East African Community’s Secretary General (EAC). The CSOs—Uganda’s Centre for Food and Proper Living Rights (CEFROHT) and Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Kenya’s Natural Justice (NJ), and Tanzania’s Centre for Strategic Litigation (CSL)—are protesting the decision by the First Instance Court and praying that they are granted the cancellation of the ruling. The court below had held that the case was initiated after the prescribed period, which view the CSOs strongly protest.

Dr. David Kabanda, the CSO lawyer and the team leader of CEFROHT, stipulated the reason for their appeal. “We came to this court of appeals because the First Instance Court struck out our case on a preliminary objection that constituted the examination of evidence. There is a court rule that rules out preliminary objections from involving examination of evidence. But from the record, judges examined some evidence before they reached their decision,” he said.

The CSOs are assuming that they filed the case timely. Lawyer Justin Semuyaba stated, “Article 30 (2) of the EAC Treaty states that any EAC resident can challenge an illegal act by a partner state within two months from the date of discovery of the act. The appellants learned of the large EACOP deals in October 2020 and filed the case in November 2020 within the time limit.”

The lawyers also criticized the First Instance Court decision to award legal costs to the governments of Tanzania, Uganda, and the EAC Secretary General. One of the lawyers, Ms. Joan Kembabazi, said that such costs would deter citizens from pursuing justice in public interest cases. “Costs can deter citizens from pursuing justice in public interest cases. Such costs deter ordinary people from bringing important cases that affect communities,” she stated.

Dr. Rugemeleza Nshala, another lawyer representing the CSOs, confirmed the same thing. “It takes courage to file a case like this, considering the stakes involved. Billing us with costs would be intimidating future actions of the same sort,” he also said.

Justice Kayobera, whose court the hearing was taking place in, directed that the ruling be delivered on notice. If the appellate court rules in favour of the CSOs, then the case is to be referred back to the First Instance Division to be heard in full on its merit.

The EACOP project, a 1,443-kilometre crude oil pipeline designed to transport crude from Uganda’s Lake Albert basin to Tanzania’s Tanga port, has been contentious right from the beginning. The CSOs assert that the project violates a host of international treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Paris Agreement on Climate, and regional environment laws.

Dickens Kamugisha, CEO AFIEGO, was emphasizing Africa’s need to act on the climate. “Given their exposure, African states need to lead the way in climate action. Shunning climate-destroying plans such as EACOP would place them in a stronger position to bargain with dirty industrial countries,” he said.

The CSOs initially filed the case on November 6, 2020, as part of a broader campaign to halt the EACOP project. They contend that there was inadequate due diligence before the project began and are seeking a court order mandating compliance with regional and international environmental and human rights standards.

The outcome of this appeal could have far-reaching implications for environmental and human rights activism in East Africa. If the CSOs succeed, not only would it give the case a hearing on the merits, but it would also set a precedent for future public interest litigation.

Lastly, the battle over the EACOP project is a reflection of the tension between these competing priorities of economic development and environmental sustainability.

The appeal by CSOs is significant effort to ensure that mega projects live up to the law and principles of morals. As the East African Court of Justice prepares to make a verdict, the region holds its breath for a judgment that balances progress with ensuring that human rights and the environment are protected. The stakes are high, and the verdict has the potential to define the fate of development in East Africa in decades to come.