Civil society lawyers have called on the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) to hear the case against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project on its merits, arguing that the initial dismissal overlooked key legal considerations.
The Appellate Division of the EACJ heard an appeal yesterday in Kigali, Rwanda, filed by four East African civil society organisations (CSOs) seeking to overturn a ruling by the First Instance Division. The lower court had dismissed their case against EACOP on procedural grounds.
The appeal was heard by Justices Nestor Kayobera, Kathurima M'Inoti, Anita Mugeni, Barishaki Bonny Cheborion, and Omar Othman Makungu.
The session drew attendance from CSOs, their legal teams, EACOP representatives, individuals affected by the oil project from Uganda, legal representatives from the Ugandan and Tanzanian governments, and the Secretary General of the East African Community (EAC).
Lawyers representing the CSOs contended that the First Instance Court erred by dismissing the case based on a preliminary objection raised by Tanzania's Solicitor General, who argued that the case was time-barred.
Dr. David Kabanda, a lawyer for the CSOs and team leader at Uganda's Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT), stated:
"We came to this appellate court because the First Instance Court dismissed our case based on a preliminary objection that required the examination of evidence. According to court rules, preliminary objections should not involve examining evidence. However, if you look at the record, the judges examined some evidence before making their ruling."
The CSOsCEFROHT and Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) from Uganda, Natural Justice (NJ) from Kenya, and the Centre for Strategic Litigation (CSL) from Tanzania--maintain that they filed the case within the stipulated timeframe.
"We are appealing the ruling that stated the case was filed out of time. Article 30 (2) of the EAC Treaty allows any EAC resident to challenge an unlawful act of a partner state within two months of discovering it. The appellants learned of the key EACOP agreements in October 2020 and filed the case in November 2020, well within the timeframe,"lawyer Justin Semuyaba explained:
The lawyers also criticised the First Instance Court's decision to award legal costs to the governments of Uganda, Tanzania, and the EAC Secretary General.
Ms. Joan Kembabazi noted"Costs can deter citizens from pursuing justice in public interest cases. Such costs discourage ordinary people from bringing critical cases that affect communities."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"It takes determination to pursue a case like this, considering the stakes. Penalizing us with costs could discourage similar future actions," Dr. Rugemeleza Nshala added:
Justice Kayobera, who presided over the hearing, announced that the ruling would be delivered on notice. If the appellate court rules in favor of the CSOs, the case will be returned to the First Instance Division for a full hearing on its merits.
Following the hearing, Dickens Kamugisha, CEO of AFIEGO, urged Uganda and Tanzania to prioritize climate action.
"Given their vulnerability, African states should take the lead in climate action. Steering clear of climate-wrecking projects like EACOP would strengthen their position in negotiations with high-polluting nations," Kamugisha said.
The CSOs initially filed the case on November 6, 2020, as part of a broader effort to halt the EACOP project.
The CSOs claim that the 1,443-kilometre pipeline, designed to transport crude oil from Uganda's Lake Albert region to Tanzania's port of Tanga, violates international agreements, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the Paris Climate Agreement, and regional environmental protocols.
The CSOs contend that due diligence was not adequately conducted before the project's commencement and seek a court ruling mandating compliance with regional and international environmental and human rights standards.
