Keypoints:
- African Energy Chamber condemns the UK legal challenge against EACOP
- NJ Ayuk says Uganda’s energy future should be decided by African institutions
- The High Court case has intensified debate over sovereignty, climate litigation and investment
THE African Energy Chamber (AEC) has labelled a legal challenge against Uganda’s East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) in the UK High Court as ‘colonialism 2.0’, arguing that African energy policy should be determined by African institutions rather than foreign courts.
The Chamber’s intervention follows legal proceedings filed against Uganda’s $5.6bn East African Crude Oil Pipeline, in which four Ugandan farmers sued EACOP Ltd., the pipeline’s UK-registered operating company. The 1,445-km pipeline is designed to transport crude oil from Uganda’s Albertine Graben to Tanzania’s port of Tanga for export to international markets.
The farmers are seeking a court order that could prevent the project from becoming operational by asking an English court to apply Ugandan constitutional, environmental and climate law. They argue the development breaches constitutional and environmental protections under Ugandan law.
The response places one of Africa’s leading energy industry organisations firmly against a lawsuit that could test the extent to which UK courts can hear claims involving major African infrastructure projects. The dispute has become a focal point in the wider debate over energy security, climate policy, foreign investment and national sovereignty.
What’s changing?
The latest legal action extends the EACOP debate beyond East Africa because EACOP Ltd. is incorporated in the United Kingdom, allowing the claim to be brought before the English courts. The outcome could influence how future legal challenges involving African infrastructure projects and multinational companies are pursued through overseas jurisdictions.
Chamber says Uganda should decide
In a statement, the AEC argued that decisions on Uganda’s petroleum sector should remain the responsibility of the country’s own institutions.
‘Decisions about Uganda’s energy future should be made in Uganda – not in London,’ the organisation said.
NJ Ayuk, Executive Chairman of the AEC, said the proceedings represented ‘colonialism 2.0’, arguing that foreign courts should not determine how African countries develop their natural resources.
‘For generations, Africa was told what resources it could exploit and how it should develop. Today, some of those same pressures are being repackaged through foreign-funded litigation and ideological campaigns that seek to dictate Africa’s energy choices from thousands of kilometres away. UK courts should not determine Uganda’s energy future. Ugandans should.’
Ayuk said African governments should retain primary responsibility for determining how natural resources are developed, provided projects comply with domestic laws and regulatory frameworks.
Industry warns over investment uncertainty
The Chamber argued that prolonged litigation involving strategic energy developments can create uncertainty for investors, complicate financing decisions and delay infrastructure projects across the continent.
The latest court action follows years of international opposition, including earlier campaigns against financing for the pipeline, underscoring how EACOP has remained one of Africa’s most closely contested energy developments.
It cited previous legal disputes involving energy developments elsewhere in Africa, saying lengthy court proceedings can affect project timelines and postpone anticipated economic benefits for host countries.
Supporters of EACOP say the pipeline will enable Uganda to commercialise its estimated 6.5 bn barrels of oil resources, generate government revenue, create jobs and strengthen regional infrastructure linking Uganda and Tanzania.
The project is being developed by TotalEnergies and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), alongside the Uganda National Oil Company and the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation.
Environmental concerns remain
Environmental organisations and community groups continue to argue that the pipeline threatens sensitive ecosystems, affects communities through land acquisition and is inconsistent with global climate objectives, concerns also highlighted in Human Rights Watch’s criticism of the EACOP project.
TotalEnergies has consistently defended EACOP, saying the project incorporates environmental and social safeguards, biodiversity protection measures and internationally recognised standards designed to minimise impacts while supporting long-term economic development.
The legal claim filed in the UK High Court has not yet been determined, and the allegations made by the claimants remain contested. The four Ugandan farmers and their legal representatives had not responded to the African Energy Chamber’s remarks at the time of publication.
Wider implications
The AEC said the latest proceedings raise broader questions about the role of foreign jurisdictions in disputes involving African infrastructure projects.
Ayuk reiterated the organisation’s support for Uganda’s plans to develop its petroleum resources.
‘The time for Uganda to exploit its immensely valuable resources is now. Africa will not give in to international coercion to prevent the continent from energising and bringing wealth to its people. Africa will not succumb to pressure to adhere to the energy transition on anyone else’s terms. We know what is good for African energy and we will do everything in our power to ensure that the continent’s resources benefit her people,’ he said.
The UK High Court will decide how the case proceeds in the coming months. Regardless of the eventual outcome, the dispute is emerging as a wider test of how environmental litigation, foreign corporate structures and questions of national sovereignty intersect as African governments seek to develop large-scale energy projects while facing increasing climate-related legal scrutiny.
