Oil & Gas

The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) continues to generate legal and social disputes along Uganda’s oil corridor, where some families argue their land was acquired without fair compensation. In Arusha, Lubega John Nsamba represented his late father’s case after the family rejected compensation they believed undervalued perennial crops and long-term livelihoods. After domestic efforts failed, several Project Affected Persons joined civil society organisations in petitioning the East African Court of Justice, but the case was dismissed on technical grounds. For many affected households, the ruling reinforced a sense that legal avenues for redress remain limited.

Across districts such as Kyotera, Hoima, Buliisa, and Nwoya, residents say compensation figures do not reflect the economic value of perennial crops such as coffee and mango trees, which generate income for years. Some community members also link pipeline construction and associated oil operations to flooding and drainage disruptions, while others report increased human-wildlife conflict as development encroaches on natural habitats. Concerns have been raised about inadequate tree replacement, environmental management, and the long-term sustainability of local ecosystems. For these communities, development is measured not only in projected revenue, but in daily impacts on land, livelihoods, and safety.

Oil developers and regulators reject claims of systemic wrongdoing, insisting that compensation frameworks and environmental safeguards follow national laws and international standards. The Petroleum Authority of Uganda maintains that land acquisition, resettlement, and waste management processes have been implemented to minimize harm, and that Uganda’s oil projects are among the least carbon-intensive globally. According to EACOP authorities, over 99 percent of affected households have signed compensation agreements and been paid. Officials argue that the project balances economic growth with regulatory oversight and environmental protection.

Yet unresolved grievances persist, particularly among families who sought land-for-land compensation or continue to challenge court decisions. Civil society groups cite constitutional provisions requiring fair and adequate compensation prior to acquisition, arguing that legal deposits in court do not always resolve disputes on the ground. As EACOP nears full operation, the tension between official assurances and community experiences remains central to the debate. The project promises billions in revenue and regional integration, but along its route, the demand for justice, transparency, and accountability continues.