Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop oil pipeline

In a legal challenge that could redefine corporate accountability for transnational infrastructure projects, a coalition of Ugandan farmers and human rights attorneys has filed a suit against a United Kingdom-based entity inextricably linked to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). The plaintiffs contend that the entity, which provides critical financial or administrative oversight for the project, has directly violated Ugandan statutory protections regarding land rights, fair compensation, and environmental preservation. As the case moves toward a high-stakes hearing, the legal team representing the affected communities is demanding an immediate injunction to halt construction on the 1,443-kilometer pipeline, which is currently entering its most intensive phase of development.

The lawsuit comes at a time of heightened global energy volatility. With the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and the recent escalation of hostilities involving Iran, global oil markets have seen unprecedented price fluctuations. This geopolitical backdrop has accelerated the Ugandan government’s desire to fast-track its domestic oil production, viewing the EACOP as a cornerstone of national economic sovereignty. However, for the farmers of the Buliisa, Hoima, and Kikuube districts, the project represents a source of displacement and economic disenfranchisement that they claim violates the very laws intended to protect Ugandan citizens during compulsory land acquisitions.

The Core Legal Contention and the UK Nexus

The legal strategy centers on the argument that the UK-based entity—acting as a pivotal node in the project’s complex corporate structure—has failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring that the land acquisition process adheres to the Ugandan Constitution and the Land Act of 1998. Under Ugandan law, "prompt, fair, and adequate compensation" must be paid prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of property by the state or a private developer. The plaintiffs allege that thousands of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) have faced delays of over four years between the valuation of their land and the actual disbursement of funds.

Furthermore, the lawyers argue that the compensation rates were based on outdated market values from 2018 and 2019, failing to account for the significant inflation and the rising cost of land in the Albertine Graben region. By the time many farmers received their settlements, the purchasing power of the compensation had diminished to the point where they could no longer afford replacement land of equivalent size or fertility. The decision to sue a UK-based entity is a tactical move designed to leverage the UK’s stringent corporate transparency and accountability standards, arguing that the entity’s oversight role makes it a party to the breaches occurring on the ground in East Africa.

A Chronology of the EACOP Project

The journey toward the current legal standoff began nearly two decades ago. Understanding the timeline of the EACOP is essential to grasping the scale of the current grievances:

• 2006: Commercial quantities of oil are first discovered in the Albertine Graben by Tullow Oil.
• 2013-2016: Prolonged negotiations between the Government of Uganda and oil majors (TotalEnergies and CNOOC) lead to the selection of the "Southern Route" through Tanzania to the port of Tanga.
• 2017: An Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) is signed between Uganda and Tanzania, laying the groundwork for the pipeline’s legal framework.
• 2021: The Final Investment Decision (FID) is delayed multiple times due to financing hurdles and environmental protests, but is eventually pushed forward.
• 2022-2023: Land acquisition begins in earnest. Reports of intimidation and "cut-off dates"—which prevent farmers from planting long-term crops or building structures—begin to emerge.
• 2025: Construction of the Central Processing Facilities (CPF) at the Tilenga and Kingfisher fields reaches 60% completion. The first sections of the 24-inch diameter insulated pipe are laid.
• March 2026: The current lawsuit is filed, seeking a judicial stay on construction as the project nears its 2027 target for "first oil."

Technical Specifications and Environmental Risks

The EACOP is no ordinary pipeline; it is designed to be the longest heated crude oil pipeline in the world. Because the oil from Uganda’s Lake Albert region is highly waxy, it must be kept at a constant temperature of 50°C (122°F) to remain fluid enough to flow to the Tanzanian coast. This requires a complex heat-tracing system and insulation along the entire 1,443-kilometer span.

Environmental advocates, who have joined the farmers in their legal pursuit, point to the catastrophic risks of a leak. The pipeline’s path traverses the Lake Victoria basin, a vital water source for over 40 million people in East Africa. It also cuts through several ecologically sensitive areas, including the Murchison Falls National Park and the Biharamulo Game Reserve. A rupture in a heated, waxy oil line would be significantly more difficult to remediate than a standard crude leak, as the oil would solidify quickly upon contact with cooler soil or water, complicating extraction and cleanup efforts.

Supporting Data: Displacement and Economic Impact

According to data compiled by human rights monitors and local NGOs, the EACOP and the associated Tilenga and Kingfisher upstream projects have impacted approximately 118,000 people. While not all are physically displaced, the vast majority are "economically displaced," meaning they have lost access to the land they rely on for their livelihoods.

• 90% of PAPs: Rely on subsistence agriculture and livestock.
• Average delay in compensation: 3.5 to 5 years from initial assessment.
• Land loss: Over 2,700 hectares of land have been cleared for the pipeline corridor and feeder lines.
• Inflationary gap: In some regions of Hoima, land prices rose by 300% between 2019 and 2025, while compensation rates remained fixed to 2018 valuations.

The plaintiffs argue that this economic displacement has led to a cycle of poverty, as families are forced into debt while waiting for payments that eventually prove insufficient to restore their previous standard of living.

Official Responses and Counter-Arguments

TotalEnergies, the lead operator of the EACOP consortium with a 62% stake, has consistently maintained that it adheres to international standards, specifically the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. In previous statements, the company has emphasized that it has implemented "livelihood restoration programs," including the provision of new housing for physically displaced families and agricultural training for those losing land.

The Ugandan government, through the Petroleum Authority of Uganda (PAU), has characterized the legal challenges as "economic sabotage" orchestrated by Western-funded activists. Ministry of Energy officials argue that the project is essential for Uganda’s development, with projected revenues of over $2 billion per year at peak production. They contend that any delays caused by the court could trigger "take-or-pay" penalties in contracts with service providers and jeopardize the country’s credit rating.

The UK-based entity named in the suit has yet to issue a detailed public response, though legal experts suggest their defense will likely focus on jurisdictional arguments, claiming that a UK court is not the appropriate forum for matters involving Ugandan land law and sovereign Ugandan territory.

The Broader Impact and Global Implications

The outcome of this case carries weight far beyond the borders of Uganda and Tanzania. It serves as a litmus test for the "Environmental, Social, and Governance" (ESG) commitments of multinational corporations and their subsidiaries. If the court grants the injunction, it would set a precedent that local communities can successfully halt multi-billion dollar energy projects by targeting the international nodes of their corporate structure.

Furthermore, the case highlights the tension between the global "Green Transition" and the developmental needs of Global South nations. While international climate activists have called for the total abandonment of the EACOP to prevent the release of an estimated 34 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, the Ugandan government views this as a form of "climate colonialism," arguing that wealthy nations built their economies on fossil fuels and are now seeking to deny African nations the same opportunity.

However, the farmers’ lawsuit reframes this debate. It is not an abstract argument about carbon footprints, but a concrete demand for the rule of law. By focusing on the breach of Ugandan domestic law, the plaintiffs are forcing the judiciary to decide whether the promise of national wealth justifies the violation of individual constitutional rights.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

As the legal teams prepare for their first appearance in court, the atmosphere in the oil-producing regions of Uganda remains tense. Security forces have increased patrols around the Tilenga oilfield and the EACOP pumping stations, citing the need to protect "strategic national assets." Meanwhile, the farmers involved in the suit report that they are undeterred, viewing the legal system as their last line of defense against a project that they feel has treated their heritage and livelihoods as mere externalities in a corporate ledger.

If the construction is indeed halted, the financial repercussions will be felt from London to Beijing. If it proceeds, the shadow of legal uncertainty will continue to hang over the project, potentially complicating future insurance renewals and debt financing. The world now watches as a group of small-scale farmers challenges the momentum of global energy giants, seeking to prove that even the most ambitious infrastructure projects are not above the law.