The appellants are also expected to file any rejoinders to the counter arguments that are to be submitted by the two states and Dr Mathuki by May 6, 2024.

The EACJ's decision to determine if the lower chamber can hear the case is a relief and procedural minor victory for activists who have suffered bruising defeats in several courts, including in France, where they run to in the hope to stop French oil giant TotalEnergies from developing the 1443km pipeline that is expected to cost $5 billion. 

In November 2020, four East African non-governmental organisations (NGOs) filed the court case as part of a series of action s to challenge the construction of the world’s longest heated pipeline that will transport crude oil from Uganda’s oilfields in the west to Tanga port for export to the international markets.

The NGOs include Uganda based Africa Institute for Energy Governance (Afiego) and Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights, alongside Kenya’s Natural Justice activist group and Centre for Strategic Litigation from Tanzania.

“We are happy that the court has set in motion processes to ensure that justice is served for the benefit of communities. Communities and East Africans in general rely on their natural and other resources to make a living and any projects such as the Eacop that threaten these resources should be challenged,” said Afiego CEO Dickens Kamugisha.

Read: Did Ugandan watchdog go soft on Eacop?

The petitioners argue that Eacop violates key East African and international treaties and laws including the EAC Treaty, Protocol for Sustainable Development of the Lake Victoria basin, Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

They also cite the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights as well as the African Convention on Conservation of Natural Resources in their case filed in November 2020, asking the EACJ to issue temporary and permanent injunctions stopping the development of the pipeline.

On November 29, 2023, the First Instance Division of EACJ dismissed the case, following preliminary objections raised by Tanzania’s Solicitor General Gabriel Malata, arguing that it was time barred and that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

“We are committed to protect both the environment and the well-being of the people in East Africa. We believe our submissions will help the court understand the environmental impact of the pipeline,” said Farida Aliwa, executive director of Natural Justice.

“We want the court to recognise how the pipeline affects our environment and the delicate ecological balance we work hard to maintain. We are determined to present our case and support the sustainable future of East Africa,” Ms Aliwa added.

A Uganda government lawyer, who declined to be named as he is not cleared to speak on the matter, said the respondents will continue to argue that this case cannot proceed because it was filed out of time, as the First Instance Court found last year and agreed with the Tanzania solicitor general. By JULIUS BARIGABA, The East African