A coalition of Ugandan farmers has taken their fight against a massive oil pipeline to the United Kingdom, seeking to apply environmental and constitutional laws to block the project.
LONDON — In a major legal maneuver, Ugandan farmers formally launched a case in the United Kingdom’s High Court on Tuesday against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). The claimants are seeking to enforce Uganda’s domestic legal protections—including constitutional, environmental, and climate laws against EACOP Ltd, the UK-registered company managing the project.
The lawsuit targets the controversial 1,443-kilometer (897-mile) pipeline designed to transport crude oil from Uganda’s landlocked oilfields to the coastal ports of Tanzania. The massive infrastructure project, which is majority-owned by the French energy conglomerate TotalEnergies, has faced intense international scrutiny from environmental and human rights groups for several years.
By filing the claim in London before the pipeline officially begins operations, the farmers aim to halt the project entirely. Claimants argue that the pipeline’s construction will displace over 100,000 people through forced land acquisitions and poses a severe, irreversible threat to critical freshwater systems and protected natural habitats along its route.
“This legal action represents a critical test of whether multinational corporations can be held accountable in their home jurisdictions for environmental and human rights impacts abroad,” environmental legal experts have noted. The outcome of the case could set a significant precedent for how major fossil fuel infrastructure projects in developing nations are regulated under international and cross-border legal frameworks, particularly as global pressure mounts to transition away from carbon-heavy energy sources.
Key Takeaways:
- Ugandan farmers have filed a lawsuit in the UK High Court against the UK-registered EACOP Ltd.
- The lawsuit seeks to block the 1,443-km crude oil pipeline stretching from Uganda to Tanzania, which is majority-owned by TotalEnergies.
- The claimants argue the project will negatively impact over 100,000 people and cross critical, protected environmental habitats.
