Ugandans sue in UK to halt EACOP pipeline project

Environmental activists and Ugandan farmers have launched a final legal challenge in London to stop the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

They were represented by Leigh Day, a law firm known for litigating environmental injustice cases in the United Kingdom.

The plaintiffs are targeting EACOP Ltd, which is registered in the UK, looking for a fair and independent hearing after previous regional lawsuits failed on technicalities.

The new development reflects an escalation of transnational legal strategies in disputes over fossil fuel development. Despite previous lawsuits in East Africa and France the project has not halted, but it has led to public scrutiny and debate.

EACOP’s 1,443 kilometre pipeline was created to transport crude oil from oilfields in western Uganda to the Tanzanian port of Tanga, and is reported to be nearing completion.

According to a local report, the legal challenge argues that the pipeline violates the Ugandan Constitution’s guarantee of a clean environment and breaches national climate laws.

Activists claimed that the infrastructure will generate approximately 372 million tonnes of CO2 emissions over its lifetime, over 58 times’ Uganda’s annual output, which will worsen the climate crisis for communities already suffering from devastating floods and droughts.

The pipeline’s route across vital habitats, including protected forests, elephant sanctuaries, and more than 200 rivers, is the main source of environmental concerns. A breach in the 460 km section of the Lake Victoria basin, according to opponents, may have disastrous effects on the River Nile and a crucial water source for the entire area.

Additionally, the construction puts rare species like Eastern Chimpanzees in the Murchison Falls and Bugoma Forest areas in peril by threatening roughly 2,000 square km of protected ecosystems.

The $5.6 billion project, which is primarily owned by TotalEnergies, the governments of Tanzania and Uganda, and China’s CNOOC, is still moving forward in spite of these strong legal and environmental objections. Infrastructure is quickly developing in the Tilenga and Kingfisher oilfields, despite the withdrawal of numerous financiers.

However, developers remain focused on a timeline that sees the first crude oil exports departing from the Tanzanian port of Tanga by October 2026, setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown in the UK courts.

New UK litigation

Dickens Kamugisha, CEO of the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) said the new case in the UK is an additional strategy and struggle to ensure the fight against injustice. He told Gas Outlook that the essence of the new litigation is to add another layer of pressure on the EACOP.

“We hope the English lawyers can actually understand the issues that we are presenting: that this project is socially, environmentally, and economically unavailable and should not proceed. Those are the things that we think, if this case succeeds, then it will mean that, you know, the impacts or the issues of climate change are global issues. Even where governments and companies ignore those issues of climate change, the judicial system is growing and is ready to make sure that all those people who get affected are protected.

“It does not matter whether the companies are within the country or whether the companies come from abroad. They would be protected. That is the precedent we hope to create, that anyone who gets impacted by the activities of a company, no matter where that company comes from, could be entitled to remedies and can be welcomed in any court in the world. That is what we are looking forward to seeing, and we hope we can wait to see.”

Muyanja James, a climate activist in Uganda, said that bringing cases against multinational fossil fuel projects such as this in foreign courts, especially in the UK, could establish a major legal precedent for corporate accountability in the climate justice movement.

James, an ambassador at the global youth organization Echo Change, told Gas Outlook that if UK courts accept jurisdiction and allow affected communities or environmental groups to challenge the actions of companies operating abroad, it would reinforce the principle that multinational corporations can be held legally responsible for environmental destruction, human rights abuses, and climate harms linked to their overseas operations.

“This would be particularly significant because many fossil fuel companies are headquartered, financed, or insured in Global North countries while the environmental and social impacts are experienced in Global South communities.

“Such a precedent could strengthen the emerging global trend of climate litigation by expanding the “duty of care” owed by parent companies to communities affected by their subsidiaries and business partners abroad. It may also encourage courts to recognize climate change not only as an environmental issue but also as a human rights issue connected to livelihoods, health, food security, displacement, and intergenerational justice.

Furthermore, a successful case could pressure banks, insurers, and investors to conduct stricter environmental and human rights due diligence before financing fossil fuel projects,” he added.

Weighing harm vs economic benefit

James said the court should weigh the projected long-term environmental harm of EACOP projects against short-term economic benefits by applying principles of sustainability, intergenerational justice, and the precautionary principle.

He noted that while project developers often argue that large fossil fuel investments create jobs, improve infrastructure, increase government revenues, and stimulate economic growth, courts must carefully examine whether these benefits are temporary and whether they outweigh irreversible environmental and social damage.

“In the case of EACOP, the projected 372 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions raise serious concerns about accelerating climate change at a time when the world is attempting to reduce global emissions under the Paris Agreement goals.

“Courts should also recognize that ecosystems such as the Lake Victoria Basin are essential for the survival of millions of people who depend on them for fishing, agriculture, water supply, and biodiversity. Environmental degradation in such sensitive ecosystems could create long-term economic losses far greater than the immediate profits promised by oil development.

“Oil spills, water contamination, habitat destruction, and displacement of communities could affect livelihoods for generations and increase poverty, food insecurity, and public health risks.”

Additionally, he said courts should evaluate whether the claimed economic benefits are equitably distributed or whether most profits primarily benefit multinational corporations and political elites while local communities bear the environmental costs.

Tension in emerging economies

Mbabazi Faridah, a climate activist in Uganda and Founder of CLIMEDIA said the EACOP case highlights a major global contradiction between development needs and climate responsibility.

She told Gas Outlook that countries like Uganda view fossil fuel projects as a pathway to economic growth and industrial development.

“At the same time, international agreements like the Paris Agreement require a global shift away from fossil fuels to reduce emissions. This creates a difficult tension: how can developing countries grow their economies without contributing further to the climate crisis? The EACOP dispute shows that this is no longer a theoretical debate; it is happening in real time,” she added.

Kamugisha believes that the reason there has not been a discussion to stop these activities is not because EACOP does not know the science. He said it is not because they do not know the impacts, but because humanity is selfish.

“As long as a few individuals benefit, and unfortunately those few people benefiting are the ones with power, they will try to create impressions that we cannot do without oil and we cannot do without gas.

“In the process, they will sacrifice everything for them to be able to proceed with energy projects because they generate billions of money. But those billions of money do not reach the citizens, do not reach the people, do not restore nature, do not protect nature, and do not protect the communities. So, it is just money that is collected by a few individuals. They enjoy it, but the rest of the citizens continue suffering.”

The CEO hopes that these issues will continue to get debated along the way, with the realities, because the whole world is facing real calamities because of climate change.

“We are not going to continue with these energy activities that destroy our humanity and destroy our existence. We are hoping it will happen sooner rather than later,” he concluded.

(Writing by Samuel Ajala; editing by Sophie Davies)