ANARDE JOINS SUIT BY GOVERNMENT AGAINST PAPs in BULIISA DISTRICT
Attorney General Vs Happy Ignatious & 8 Others, Miscellaneous Cause No. 25 Of 2020 (Masindi High Court)
In an interesting turn of events, the government of Uganda sued nine Project Affected Persons (PAPs) who disagreed with the compensation model that government undertook in oil-rich Buliisa District. The applicant seeks orders that the Respondents take the money that is consideration for the land and to obtain vacant possession of the land. This is in regard to the land curved out for the Tilenga project housed in Kisinyi Village, Ngwendo Sub-county, Buliisa District. The land in dispute measures over 74.21 hectares.
The Respondents comprising 9 people (representing a total of 13 people) are all residents of Ngwendo Sub-county Buliisa District. They were notified that the land they lived on was to be acquired by government for the establishment of the Tilenga project. The government gazetted a Statutory Instrument on 9th November, 2018 declaring the land as necessary for public purpose and since then, the respondents were stopped from utilizing their land which is currently in the possession of the developers, Total E & P Uganda.
Under the Resettlement Action Plan 1, landowners have a choice to either demand for monetary compensation or resettlement/relocation in a different area.
The Respondents opted for relocation and the same was accepted by government and the oil companies. However, the area they were relocated to lacked access roads, had scarce social amenities (like water and electricity) and was embroiled in land disputes making it an unsuitable option of a considerably less value. Whereas some of the Respondents agreed, a few were dissatisfied with the settlement area. The Respondents demanded the companies to relocate them to upper Buliisa, in areas they had personally identified but the companies blatantly refused to do the same.
The companies, through government (Attorney General), brought Court action, invoking Court’s its inherent powers, to deposit the money in Court so as to compel the PAPs to take the money to allow for continued oil and gas operations in the village. The ground is that, there is need to develop the petroleum resources of Uganda and transform its socio-economic welfare yet the respondents are constraining these efforts to the detriment of all Ugandans.
The applicants additionally maintain that the value of compensation for surface rights is at the rate provided by the Chief Government Valuer, UGX 3million per acre and will not be negotiated further.
ANARDE, given her interests in matters of natural resource governance and accountability in the extractives industry as well as vast expertise in strategic Court action has joined the matter. ANARDE has received instructions to litigate this matter in public interest on behalf of the respondents, jointly with M/s Byarugaba Paul & Co. Advocates which has been duly conducting undertaking the matter.
It is ANARDE’s assertion that the matter is a gross violation of the right to property of the PAPs by virtue of Article 26 (1) of the 1995 Constitution and that further under Article 26 (2)(1) (a), a land owner must exercise Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) before transactions are undertaken on their land. This is a theme that ANARDE has actively engaged in through its programmes throughout Uganda. https://www.anarde.org/projects_details.php?id=%271029%27.
This is also backed by the fact that ANARDE has a constitutional petition filed in Court, that is ANARDE Vs Attorney General( Constitutional Petition No. 08 of 2020) (https://anarde.org/court_cases_details.php?id=%271238%27) that challenges the dispute resolution mechanism on surface rights compensation envisaged under Section 139 (2) & (3) of the Petroleum (EDP) Act, 2013. The new miscellaneous Cause makes for a good illustration of the failure of an accessible, effective and fair dispute resolution mechanism on surface rights compensation in the extractive industry.
This matter equally raises points of constitutional interpretation in regard to the Land Acquisition Act Cap 226 vis a vis the 1995 Constitution of Uganda (as amended) that need to be addressed to realise the right to property for all Ugandans.
Furthermore, ANARDE intends to challenge the legality of the procedure adopted by the government since it is meant to set down a negative precedent that will be adopted by the government in any compulsory land acquisition operations let alone to be included in the Land Acquisition Act that is under review.
The matter is before the High Court of Uganda at Masindi and ANARDE will enter appearance on the next Court hearing as co-counsel for the defendants since a notice of joint instructions was filed in Court.
