The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has dismissed a case challenging the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), ruling against four East African organisations and closing the matter on procedural grounds before any evidence could be examined.
The decision leaves thousands of affected families without the opportunity to present their grievances in court.
The appeal, filed by CEFROHT, AFIEGO, Natural Justice, and the Center for Strategic Litigation, alleged that Uganda and Tanzania violated regional law by advancing the EACOP project without conducting the legally required environmental and social impact assessments.
The NGOs also highlighted the lack of adequate safeguards for communities and ecosystems along the 1,443 km pipeline route from Uganda to the Tanzanian coast.
The Court cited a 60-day filing limit, ruling the case was submitted too late. Lawyers representing the NGOs argued that key project agreements were made public years after they were signed, making it impossible to meet the deadline.
Justin Semuyaba, one of the legal representatives, said: “By refusing to hear this case, the Court has turned its back on families already harmed by EACOP. Land has been taken, livelihoods shattered, and people intimidated or arrested for speaking out — yet none of that will be heard in this courtroom.”
The EACOP project, led by TotalEnergies and China’s National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), has been described as a “carbon bomb” by the Climate Accountability Institute.
The pipeline is expected to emit more carbon dioxide than Uganda and Tanzania combined, while threatening vital ecosystems, water sources, and the livelihoods of over 100,000 people along its path.
Rachael Tugume, a displaced Ugandan community member, said: “We came to this Court to be heard, but it chose not to listen to the people living with the real consequences of EACOP. We may have lost this battle, but as long as this pipeline threatens our homes and our future, we will keep fighting.”
Despite the ruling, EACOP faces mounting challenges. The project is behind schedule, has yet to reach full financial close, and its costs have risen from US$3.5 billion to roughly US$5.6 billion.
With many banks and insurers withdrawing support, Total and its partners are now self-financing nearly 90% of the project.
Coleen Scott, Legal and Policy Associate at Inclusive Development International, said: “This ruling is a blow for affected communities, but it doesn’t make EACOP any less of a reckless gamble. Every new controversy and lawsuit only increases the risks for investors paying attention.”
