The farmers and their lawyers will argue that a UK-based entity linked to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline has breached Ugandan law and construction should halt
A group of farmers plans to sue the developers of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) in a British court, claiming the project breaches the Ugandan constitution and climate and environment law.
In a previously unreported letter before action, sent to the developers’ UK-based arm in January, the farmers say they and their livelihoods risk being harmed by climate change which the pipeline will worsen by generating millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
Their law firm, London-based Leigh Day, plans to file a formal claim in the next few months, in which it will ask for construction of the pipeline – which will cost around $5.6 billion to build, spans Uganda and Tanzania and is four-fifths complete – to be halted.
Advertisement
The lawsuit has been crowdfunded by donations from over 40,000 people, coordinated by the Avaaz campaign group, which promote the case as “one final chance to stop one of the worst oil pipelines on the planet”.
The oil export project has pushed up the price of land, so compensation is too low to maintain affected villagers’ standard of living
The pipeline is a joint venture led by French company TotalEnergies, with smaller stakes owned by Uganda, Tanzanian and Chinese national oil firms. But it is operated by EACOP Ltd, a company registered to an office in Canary Wharf, the tallest building in London’s financial district.
Leigh Day solicitor Joe Snape, who represents the group of farmers, said EACOP highlights how corporations in the Global North are profiting from fossil fuel extraction projects in the Global South which also suffer most from their worsening of climate change.
EACOP Ltd did not respond to a request for comment.
Ugandan law tested in UK court
The group of four farmers accuses EACOP Ltd of breaching their right to a clean and healthy environment under the Ugandan constitution, as well as its legal obligations under Uganda’s National Environment Act and National Climate Change Act.
Snape told Climate Home News that Ugandan law has novel clauses allowing people to make environmental claims without having to demonstrate a precise link to their own loss. They just have to show that the action complained of threatens, or is likely to threaten, efforts to reduce emissions or adapt to climate change, he said.
Advertisement
However, these clauses have not yet been tested in court, so it will be up to British judges, if they accept the case, to interpret how they apply in practice.
Leigh Day is keen to use the UK’s legal system because it perceives it as more impartial and efficient than that of Uganda, Snape said. A climate lawsuit filed in Uganda more than a decade ago by a group of young people has yet to conclude.
EACOP has been subject to repeated lawsuits in several countries, none of which have succeeded. A case at the East African Court of Justice, brought by campaign groups against Uganda and Tanzania, was rejected on procedural grounds last November.
A separate ongoing lawsuit in TotalEnergies’ home country of France – a refiled version of an earlier failed claim – cannot stop EACOP going ahead, but it does seek damages from TotalEnergies for affected communities.
Thousands already displaced
The pipeline, which will link Uganda’s Lake Albert oil fields to Africa’s east coast in Tanzania, is around 80% completed according to its developers, with first oil exports possible as early as October.
Thousands of people have already been displaced by the pipeline, with compensation paid and many training schemes – whose quality has been criticised – already completed.
Despite this progress, the farmers’ legal team say that a court could still stop the pipeline from being completed. Any contractual or compensation issues arising from the stoppage and the billions of dollars of sunk costs would have to be dealt with separately, said Snape.
Gerald Barekye, a farmer, researcher and campaigner, from the pipeline-affected Hoima district, will be one of the claimants. He said Ugandan communities were already living with flooding, drought and food insecurity caused by climate change.
“Allowing these oil companies to complete the construction of the EACOP pipeline and extract millions of barrels of oil, which will produce millions of tonnes of emissions, will only make this situation in this region worse and deepen our suffering,” he said.
Agriculture, which makes up a fifth of Uganda’s GDP and employs two-thirds of its population, is likely to be affected by falling yields, rising plant pests and diseases, reduced suitable for crop growing and changes to growing seasons caused by climate change.
As well as the climate impacts, they will argue that the pipeline will have a significant impact on local nature and wildlife from possible oil spills, habitat fragmentation, noise pollution and new infrastructure, and poses a threat to major water resources.
Michel Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders under the Aarhus Convention, has raised further concerns about “serious allegations of persistent and widespread attacks and threats” against environmental defenders in Uganda over the project.
In 2022, Ugandan police arrested nine activists protesting against EACOP. One protester, Nabuyanda John Solomon, told Climate Home News at the time that police had broken one man’s arm and hit another in the eye with a baton.
Our unprecedented reporting provides experts and professionals globally with the analysis and insight they need to navigate the most important climate issues.
Trusted by the UN, World Bank, and governments around the world, sign up today and see why our award-winning coverage has been considered the authority for almost 15 years.
Essential
£0
A few top stories each week alongside our Climate Weekly newsletter.
Much of the world’s food production depends on fossil fuels for fertiliser and transportation, and the crisis in the Gulf will push up prices – and, in turn, hunger
A case being heard in the US Supreme Court is pivotal to a longtime push by fossil fuel firms to prevent state courts considering the industry’s role in the climate crisis
Stories coming out of Vanuatu tend to focus on the adverse impacts of the climate crisis – but amid the disasters, a powerful narrative of resilience is being written, led by women
As Middle East conflict rattles energy markets, Barbados charts a practical path for small islands to harness abundant renewables and strengthen energy security
Ore Energy says its long-duration batteries made of iron and air can help Europe cut its dependence on critical minerals supply chains and boost renewables
Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres said she hopes that a new fossil fuel phase out summit in Santa Marta can cement a coalition of countries
Madagascar’s Rindra Rabarinirinarison takes the helm of the troubled organisation promising to prioritise fundraising, rebuild trust with donors and hone its mission
Across Asia, the installation of early warning systems, alongside community involvement, is now viewed as a key response to the ever-present threat of climate disasters.
Much of the world’s food production depends on fossil fuels for fertiliser and transportation, and the crisis in the Gulf will push up prices – and, in turn, hunger
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Facts Only
Ugandan farmers, represented by Leigh Day, plan to sue EACOP developers in a British court.
The lawsuit claims the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) breaches Uganda’s constitution and environmental laws.
The pipeline is 80% complete, spans Uganda and Tanzania, and is estimated to cost $5.6 billion.
EACOP is a joint venture led by TotalEnergies, with stakes held by Ugandan, Tanzanian, and Chinese national oil firms.
The project is operated by EACOP Ltd, a company registered in London’s Canary Wharf.
The lawsuit is crowdfunded by over 40,000 donors, coordinated by the Avaaz campaign group.
Farmers argue the pipeline will worsen climate change, emitting millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases.
Ugandan law allows environmental claims without proving direct harm, though these clauses are untested in court.
Previous lawsuits in Uganda, Tanzania, and France have failed to stop the project.
Thousands of people have been displaced by the pipeline, with compensation and training schemes criticized.
The pipeline links Uganda’s Lake Albert oil fields to Tanzania’s east coast.
First oil exports could begin as early as October 2024.
Farmers cite climate impacts like flooding, drought, and food insecurity as reasons to halt construction.
UN Special Rapporteur Michel Forst has raised concerns about attacks on environmental defenders in Uganda.
Ugandan police arrested nine activists protesting EACOP in 2022, with reports of violence.
Executive Summary
A group of Ugandan farmers, represented by London-based law firm Leigh Day, is preparing to sue the developers of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) in a British court. The farmers argue that the project violates Uganda’s constitution and environmental laws, exacerbating climate change and threatening their livelihoods. The $5.6 billion pipeline, which is 80% complete and spans Uganda and Tanzania, is a joint venture led by TotalEnergies, with stakes held by Ugandan, Tanzanian, and Chinese national oil firms. The lawsuit, crowdfunded by over 40,000 donors, seeks to halt construction, citing the pipeline’s potential to emit millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases and displace thousands of people. The case hinges on novel clauses in Ugandan law that allow environmental claims without proving direct harm, though these have not yet been tested in court. Previous legal challenges in Uganda, Tanzania, and France have failed to stop the project, and the pipeline’s operators, EACOP Ltd, have not responded to requests for comment. The farmers and their supporters argue that the project will worsen climate impacts in a region already facing flooding, drought, and food insecurity, while critics highlight concerns about land compensation, environmental degradation, and repression of activists.
The lawsuit reflects broader tensions between fossil fuel development and climate justice, with the farmers’ legal team emphasizing the role of Global North corporations in profiting from projects that disproportionately harm the Global South. The outcome could set a precedent for how environmental laws are interpreted and enforced across borders, particularly in cases where local legal systems are perceived as less impartial. Meanwhile, the pipeline’s developers continue construction, with first oil exports potentially beginning as early as October. The case also underscores the challenges faced by environmental defenders in Uganda, where activists have reported harassment and violence linked to their opposition to the project.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative frames the EACOP lawsuit as a David-and-Goliath struggle for climate justice, where marginalized Ugandan farmers leverage international legal systems to challenge a fossil fuel project backed by powerful corporations and governments. The farmers’ case is bolstered by the novel legal clauses in Ugandan environmental law, which could set a precedent for holding corporations accountable for climate harms. The crowdfunding effort and global support from groups like Avaaz amplify the moral weight of their argument, positioning the pipeline as a symbol of Global North exploitation of the Global South. The narrative gains further credibility from the documented displacement of communities, environmental risks, and repression of activists, all of which align with broader critiques of extractive industries.
However, the narrative also exhibits patterns of emotional exploitation (ARC-0012) and forced binary framing (ARC-0028). The language of "one final chance to stop one of the worst oil pipelines on the planet" leans into moral panic, while the framing of the case as a definitive battle between justice and corporate greed oversimplifies the complexities of energy development, economic needs, and legal jurisdiction. The focus on the pipeline’s climate impacts, while valid, risks downplaying the potential economic benefits for Uganda and Tanzania, such as revenue and infrastructure development. Additionally, the reliance on untested legal clauses introduces uncertainty about the case’s viability, yet the narrative presents it as a clear path to justice.
At its root, this narrative reflects a paradigm of climate justice activism that seeks to use legal and moral pressure to halt fossil fuel projects, particularly in regions where local governance is perceived as weak or complicit. The unstated assumption is that international legal systems are more impartial and effective than domestic ones, which may not always hold true. Historically, this echoes colonial-era dynamics where Global North institutions intervene in Global South affairs, albeit with different intentions. The implications for human agency are significant: if successful, the case could empower communities to challenge extractive projects, but if it fails, it may reinforce the perception that legal systems are stacked against marginalized groups.
The second-order consequences include potential chilling effects on foreign investment in African energy projects, as well as the possibility of backlash against environmental defenders if the case is seen as an external imposition. The narrative also raises questions about the role of crowdfunded litigation in shaping global climate policy and whether such efforts can scale beyond high-profile cases.
Bridge questions: What alternative development models could balance Uganda’s economic needs with climate justice? How might the outcome of this case influence other fossil fuel projects in the Global South? What would it take for Ugandan courts to be seen as a viable venue for such lawsuits?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign would likely amplify the emotional framing of the pipeline as an existential threat, while downplaying the economic trade-offs and legal uncertainties. It might also exploit the Global North-South dynamic to portray the case as a moral crusade, using crowdfunding and social media to create a sense of urgency. The actual content aligns with some of these tactics, particularly in its use of moral language and crowdfunded support, but it also includes substantive legal and environmental arguments that go beyond mere manipulation. The presence of documented harms and repression adds credibility, making it unlikely to be a pure influence operation.