The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has reserved judgment after hearing arguments on an objection to the court's jurisdiction in a case challenging the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
This is until questions of environmental, social justice and climate justice concerns raised in the case are heard and determined.
The case was filed by the Secretary General of the East African Community, the Republic of Tanzania and the Republic of Uganda.
The matter came up for highlighting during submissions for the preliminary objection filed by the respondents. The objection sought to dismiss the case before the applicants got the opportunity to ventilate the real issues at the main hearing.
The respondents' contention was threefold: One, that the court did not have the power to entertain the case since it was brought outside the statutory period of two months. Secondly, they contested the jurisdiction of the court to entertain issues of violation of human rights - according to the respondents, this matter fell outside the court's purview when human rights issues arose.
Finally, the respondents argued that the matter was not ripe for hearing because the applicants' submission was defective. The applicants - Natural Justice, Centre for Strategic Litigation, the Centre for Food and Adequate Living Rights and Africa Institute for Energy Governance asked the court to dismiss this preliminary objection on the basis that it was not properly framed.
The applicants argued that the issues raised by the respondents required the court to go into questions of fact, which the court should not consider at a preliminary stage. The court could not, at this point, evaluate the contested dates on which the intergovernmental agreement and the host government agreement were signed.
On the issue of the submissions being defective, the applicants argued that court rules did not provide for a specific format for the verification of documents, as such the mode they adopted was sufficient, and in any case, the respondents had not shown they were put to any disadvantage by how the applicants had verified their submission. Ruling on the preliminary objection will likely be handed down when the court sits again in June or August 2023.
If the preliminary objection on the court's jurisdiction is successful, the case will be dismissed, and if the court determines that it has jurisdiction, then the matter shall proceed and will be heard on merits.
"The importance of this case for biodiversity and millions who stand to be impacted by it remains, making it all the more important that it be considered on its merits. We hope that this will be among the watershed cases that take up and address important issues of development, climate change and its human rights impacts,'' said Mark Odaga, Attorney of the Natural Justice.
''We believe that in this case, the respondents have not complied with the Treaty on various grounds, specifically provisions linked to human rights and the environment. We are positive that the East African Court of Justice will give an opportunity for the main hearing to be held and that the issues detailed in the main submission be heard and debated,'' said Lucien Limacher, Head of Litigation, Natural Justice.
The East African Court of Justice is a regional court which has jurisdiction to hear human rights issues when a partner state or institution violates the East African Community Treaty.
According to Diana Nabiruma, Senior Communications Officer, Africa Institute for Energy Governance, communities have suffered various impacts such as decreased family incomes, school drop-outs, family breakdowns, and mental anguish due to the human rights abuses seen under the EACOP project. ''The communities deserve justice and it is our hope that the EACJ will expeditiously hear the main case and dispense justice,'' said Nabiruma.
On November 6, 2020, the applicants filed a case against the governments of Uganda and Tanzania and the Secretary General of the EAC, challenging the construction of the EACOP at the EACJ.
