East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) Case and the Fight for Justice

Introduction

The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) is one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever undertaken in the East African region. Crossing Uganda and Tanzania, the project is designed to facilitate the export of crude oil from the Albertine region to the Indian Ocean. Beyond the economic growth of East Africa, EACOP carries profound implications for land rights, environmental protection, climate resilience, and the livelihoods of thousands of people across the region.

From its earliest stages, the project has generated widespread concern among affected communities, civil society organisations, and environmental defenders. Questions have persisted regarding transparency in decision-making, compliance with national and regional laws, protection of shared ecosystems, and the adequacy of safeguards for communities whose land and livelihoods are directly impacted. Given its cross-border nature, EACOP is not merely a domestic development project but a regional undertaking that requires and engages the collective responsibilities of East African Community Partner States.

It was within this context that the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT), together with regional partners, turned to the East African Court of Justice (EACJ). The case leveraged the legal and institutional frameworks of the East African Community to effectively uphold principles of good governance, accountability, environmental protection, and public participation when confronted with large-scale extractive projects.

Where It All Began: How CEFROHT Instituted the Case

CEFROHT’s decision to institute proceedings before the East African Court of Justice was triggered by a public statement issued by the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) company on 20 September 2020, announcing that an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) had been signed and that the project was already progressing. This announcement marked the first clear and official disclosure that the legal and institutional foundations of the project had been going on. Prior to this statement, the agreements supporting EACOP had not been made public, nor subjected to meaningful public scrutiny, effectively excluding affected communities and civil society from participating in decisions of significant regional consequence.

Upon learning of this announcement, CEFROHT was confronted with a series of urgent and troubling questions. At the time, there was no visible evidence of compliance with key national and regional legal requirements, including the completion and public disclosure of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs), adherence to land acquisition and compensation laws, or meaningful consultation with Project-Affected Persons (PAPs). Despite these apparent gaps, the project was being presented as legally settled and operationally advanced. This disconnect raised serious concerns about legality, transparency, and adherence to the principles of good governance enshrined in the East African Community Treaty.

In response, CEFROHT undertook a rapid legal and factual assessment, working closely with affected communities and civil society partners to interrogate the implications of the disclosed information. The concerns extended beyond procedural shortcomings to substantive violations of Treaty obligations relating to environmental protection, public participation, accountability, and the rule of law. The filing of Reference No. 39 of 2020 was therefore a direct and timely response to newly disclosed information that revealed potential systemic breaches requiring judicial scrutiny at the regional level.

Recognising that EACOP is not a purely national project but a regional undertaking with far-reaching cross-border implications, CEFROHT deliberately expanded the litigation into a collective East African effort. The pipeline traverses Partner States and threatens shared ecosystems, water resources, climate resilience, and the collective rights of East African citizens. For this reason, CEFROHT worked with public interest organisations from across the region, including the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Natural Justice, and the Centre for Strategic Litigation, among others. This collaboration strengthened the legal strategy and the case as a matter of regional accountability rather than a domestic dispute, affirming that projects pursued under the banner of regional integration must also be subjected to regional judicial oversight.

The Case in Court

At the Court of First Instance of the East African Court of Justice, the Attorneys General of Uganda and Tanzania raised a preliminary objection contending that the Reference filed by CEFROHT and others was out of time. The objection was grounded in Article 30(2) of the East African Community Treaty, which prescribes a two-month period within which a Reference must be instituted.

CEFROHT maintained that the case was filed within the timelines set by the Treaty. The Reference was lodged shortly after EACOP publicly announced, on 20 September 2020, that an Inter-Governmental Agreement had been signed and that the project was progressing. This announcement marked the point at which critical information about the legal status of the project entered the public domain. Prior to this disclosure, the agreements and decisions underpinning EACOP were not publicly available, and affected communities and civil society organisations had no reasonable basis upon which to challenge them.

The legal issue before the Court was therefore not one of delay or indolence on the part of the applicants, but one of when knowledge can reasonably be attributed to the public. Article 30(2) expressly contemplates situations where time begins to run from the date a complainant becomes aware of the impugned act. CEFROHT argued that this provision is particularly relevant in cases involving large-scale infrastructure projects negotiated in secrecy, where the public only becomes aware of binding decisions after official disclosures are made.

The objection raised a broader question for the Court: whether Article 30(2) should be interpreted in a manner that promotes access to justice and accountability, or whether it should be applied rigidly in a way that effectively insulates government action from judicial scrutiny. The determination of this question would not only affect the EACOP case, but also shape the future of public interest litigation before the East African Court of Justice.

The Unexamined Merits of the Case

Beyond the preliminary objections and procedural debates, the EACOP case raised substantive issues that go to the heart of environmental protection, human rights, and regional responsibility under the East African Community Treaty. These were matters that the Court was invited to examine on merit, but which ultimately remained unaddressed following the dismissal of the Reference.

One of the central concerns related to the adequacy and integrity of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs). Given the scale and sensitivity of the EACOP project, comprehensive and transparent ESIAs are not merely technical requirements but essential safeguards for communities, ecosystems, and shared natural resources. Questions were raised regarding whether ESIA processes were completed on time, whether reasonable measures were considered to prevent pollution, whether they complied with national and regional legal standards, and whether affected communities were meaningfully consulted before key project decisions were finalised.

The case also highlighted disparities in the treatment of Project-Affected Persons (PAPs) across Partner States. While there were indications that compensation and resettlement processes in Tanzania were comparatively more structured, communities in Uganda continued to raise serious concerns about delayed, inadequate, or unfair compensation for land, crops, and livelihoods. These inconsistencies raised questions about equality, non-discrimination, and the obligation of states to protect the rights and dignity of affected populations under the Treaty.

In addition, the litigation sought to draw attention to ongoing human rights concerns associated with the project. Even where project proponents emphasised compliance mechanisms, inspection regimes, and safety measures, reports from affected areas pointed to continued violations, including loss of livelihoods, social disruption, and constraints on community participation. The case therefore sought judicial clarification on whether procedural assurances alone are sufficient where substantive rights impacts persist.

Critically, the Reference also raised regional environmental concerns, particularly the potential risks to the Lake Victoria Basin. Lake Victoria is a shared resource that supports millions of people across several countries and forms part of interconnected river systems extending beyond the immediate project area. Experiences from oil-producing regions, such as the Niger Delta in Nigeria, demonstrate the long-term consequences of oil pollution when safeguards fail. The EACOP case invited the Court to consider whether adequate regional protections are in place to prevent similar outcomes, given that environmental harm does not respect national boundaries.

These unresolved issues underscore the importance of judicial engagement with the substance of public interest cases. They are not abstract concerns but lived realities for affected communities and shared risks for the East African region as a whole.

The Judgment: A Long Journey from First Instance to Appeal

The EACOP case was a long journey, which begun at the First Instance Division (FID) of the East African Court of Justice and progressed through to the Appellate Division. Over several years, CEFROHT and its partners engaged in detailed legal research, strategy sessions, and community consultations, ensuring that the case was meticulously documented and argued.

At the FID, the Reference was initially dismissed on the basis of a preliminary objection, asserting that the case had been filed out of time. CEFROHT contested this decision, arguing that the filing was timely based on the public disclosure of critical project information and that Article 30(2) of the East African Treaty allows time to run from when a complainant reasonably becomes aware of the impugned act. Following this, the matter was taken to the Appellate Division, where the team presented oral submissions, addressed inconsistencies in the court record, and highlighted ongoing environmental and human rights concerns, including compensation for Project-Affected Persons (PAPs) in Uganda and the potential risks to the Lake Victoria Basin.

On 26 November 2025, the Appellate Division delivered its judgment. The Court affirmed the decision of the First Instance Division, holding that the Reference was filed out of time under Article 30(2) of the Treaty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Court ruled that each party should bear its own costs. While the outcome was not in CEFROHT’s favour, the judgment explicitly recognised the public interest nature of the case, acknowledging the efforts of CEFROHT and its partners to promote compliance with the Treaty and regional accountability.

Though the dismissal was disappointing, it does not diminish the significance of the issues raised. The case brought to the fore critical concerns about environmental protection, human rights, transparency, and the treatment of Project-Affected Persons. It also demonstrated the dedication of civil society and regional partners to uphold accountability in large-scale projects affecting multiple East African countries. The judgment marks a critical moment in the ongoing conversation about the balance between procedural rules and access to justice in public interest litigation across the region.

The EACJ and Long-Established Legal Principles

While the judgment officially dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, the case exposed a larger concern about the Court’s approach to public interest litigation. Longstanding legal principles, such as those established in the Mukisa Biscuits case, require courts to carefully distinguish between pure points of law and issues of fact, particularly when preliminary objections are raised. This ensures that technical defences do not automatically shut down claims of substantive public interest, allowing courts to engage with the merits where appropriate.

In the EACOP case, the Court’s strict reliance on Article 30(2), which sets a two-month filing period from when the complainant becomes aware of the impugned act, effectively prevented examination of the substantive issues, even though the project had significant regional implications. The Court held that the Reference was filed out of time, basing its decision on the 2017 signing date of the Inter-Governmental Agreement, rather than the date when the public, affected communities, and civil society became aware of the project. This approach disregarded the reality that critical information, including agreements, Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs), and other key documents, was not made publicly accessible until much later.

As a result, the Court did not address pressing substantive concerns, including:

• Whether ESIAs were conducted properly and whether the project complies with national and regional legal standards;
• The ongoing human rights violations and inadequate compensation of Project-Affected Persons (PAPs) in Uganda, in contrast to comparatively better processes in Tanzania;
• The potential environmental risks to the flora and fauna, national game parks and game reserves, including animals on the Red List, the Lake Victoria Basin which is a critical shared resource affecting multiple African countries, and the risk of oil pollution, as observed in other oil-producing regions such as Nigeria.

Through strictly applying Article 30(2) in this manner, the Court effectively precluded judicial scrutiny of urgent public interest issues, leaving affected communities without remedy and undermining confidence in the Court’s role as a regional guardian of accountability and environmental protection. This case highlights the pressing need for a more context-sensitive interpretation of procedural timelines, especially in cross-border projects with far-reaching socio-environmental impacts.

What Next; Continental and Local Avenues

While the EACOP case was ultimately dismissed, CEFROHT remains committed to pursuing justice for affected communities and ensuring that accountability, environmental protection, and human rights are upheld across East Africa. The dismissal does not mark the end of efforts but rather signals the need for diversified legal and advocacy strategies to address ongoing violations and risks.

At the regional level, CEFROHT continues to explore alternative avenues within the East African Community framework. This includes engaging with other EAC institutions, raising awareness among regional policymakers, and fostering partnerships with organizations such as AFIEGO, Natural Justice, and the Center for Strategic Litigation, recognising that EACOP’s impacts transcend national borders and affect all East Africans. By leveraging these networks, CEFROHT aims to ensure that lessons from the EACOP case inform future regional litigation and policy decisions.

At the national level, CEFROHT is working closely with affected communities to address immediate concerns. Efforts include supporting Project-Affected Persons (PAPs) in Uganda to seek fair compensation, advocating for the enforcement of environmental safeguards, and monitoring the project to ensure compliance with national laws and human rights standards. Parallel initiatives in Tanzania aim to share best practices and ensure equitable treatment across borders.

CEFROHT is also pursuing knowledge sharing, research, and advocacy to strengthen the evidence base for future litigation. This includes documenting environmental and human rights risks, analyzing gaps in regulatory compliance, and developing legal strategies that can withstand procedural obstacles such as those encountered under Article 30(2).

In addition, CEFROHT continues to engage with the international community, including multilateral organizations and development partners, to promote accountability, transparency, and adherence to human rights standards in large-scale extractive projects. By combining local action with regional and continental advocacy, CEFROHT seeks to ensure that affected communities are not left behind and that regional institutions fulfill their mandate to uphold the Treaty and protect public interest.

The EACOP case may have been dismissed, but it has strengthened the resolve of civil society, legal practitioners, and communities to pursue justice through all available legal and advocacy channels. CEFROHT’s work continues, emphasizing vigilance, collaboration, and strategic engagement to prevent human rights violations and environmental harm in the East African region.

Conclusion.

The journey of the EACOP case from the First Instance Division to the Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice shows both the promise and the challenges of regional justice. While the judgment was not in favour of CEFROHT and its partners, the case brought critical issues to light: the rights of Project-Affected Persons, the environmental and social impacts of large-scale infrastructure projects, and the need for transparency and accountability in cross-border undertakings.

This experience emphasises the urgent need for a people-centred approach to regional justice, where procedural rules such as Article 30(2) are applied in a manner that does not preclude access to justice. Courts must strike a balance between the letter of the law and the realities faced by citizens and communities, particularly when vital human rights, environmental protection, and public interest are at stake.

CEFROHT remains committed to advocating for justice, accountability, and environmental stewardship, both within national jurisdictions and across the East African Community. The organization will continue to work with affected communities, civil society partners, and regional stakeholders to ensure that lessons from the EACOP case inform future litigation, policy reforms, and enforcement mechanisms.

The EACOP case also serves as a call to action for regional institutions, governments, and legal practitioners to strengthen procedural frameworks, enhance transparency, and uphold the rights of East Africans in projects that affect their land, livelihoods, and environment. Justice is not only about legal outcomes but about ensuring that communities are protected, voices are heard, and obligations are met.

Ultimately, the case demonstrates that the fight for environmental justice, human rights, and regional accountability is ongoing. It serves as a reminder that civil society, legal advocates, and communities must remain vigilant, strategic, and united in their pursuit of a regional justice system that truly serves the people of East Africa.