Civil society demands transparency in Uganda–DRC oil talks

Civil society organizations in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have voiced significant concerns over the lack of transparency in ongoing bilateral discussions regarding potential joint oil development in the Albertine Graben. Coalitions like Notre Terre Sans Pétrole (NTSP) and Stop EACOP warn that the opaque process could lead to severe environmental and social consequences, including pollution, forced displacement, and loss of livelihoods, without adequate community consultation or robust safeguards. This article examines the legal frameworks in both jurisdictions that mandate transparency and public participation in extractive industries, highlighting the potential legal and reputational risks for governments and investors if these principles are disregarded in cross-border resource agreements.

The prospect of joint oil development between Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in the resource-rich Albertine Graben has ignited a fierce debate, with civil society organizations (CSOs) at the forefront demanding transparency and accountability. Following a joint communiqué in May 2026 between Presidents Yoweri Museveni and Félix Tshisekedi, which hinted at cooperation in managing shared natural resources and potential integration into Uganda's oil infrastructure, CSOs like Notre Terre Sans Pétrole (NTSP) and Stop EACOP have raised alarm bells. They argue that these crucial discussions are proceeding without meaningful public disclosure, adequate consultation with affected communities, or independent assessment of environmental and social risks.

This lack of transparency is not merely a procedural oversight; it represents a fundamental challenge to the principles of good governance, sustainable development, and human rights enshrined in both national and international legal frameworks. The Albertine Graben, a region of immense ecological sensitivity and biodiversity, supports the livelihoods of countless communities through fishing, agriculture, and tourism. Uncoordinated or poorly regulated oil development in this area, particularly if it extends existing projects like Tilenga, Kingfisher, and the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) into eastern DRC, threatens to exacerbate environmental degradation and social disruption already observed in Uganda and Tanzania.

This article will delve into the legal obligations for transparency and public participation under Ugandan and DRC law, as well as relevant international principles. It will analyze the implications of the current opaque negotiations, drawing parallels with existing challenges in the region's oil sector, and conclude by outlining the critical legal and practical considerations for practitioners navigating cross-border resource development in Africa.

The legal landscape governing petroleum activities in both Uganda and the DRC underscores a commitment to transparency, accountability, and environmental protection, at least in principle. In Uganda, the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, guarantees every citizen the right to a clean and healthy environment (Article 39) and the right to participate in government affairs (Article 38). These constitutional tenets are operationalized through the National Oil and Gas Policy, which, since its 2008 inception and subsequent revisions, explicitly lists transparency and accountability, protection of the environment and biodiversity, and the spirit of cooperation as guiding principles.

Further, Uganda's Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act, 2013, and the Petroleum (Refining, Conversion, Transmission and Midstream Storage) Act, 2013, both mandate an "open, transparent and competitive process of licensing" and aim to ensure that petroleum activities are carried out in a sustainable manner, guaranteeing optimum benefits for all Ugandans while protecting public safety, health, and the environment. The policy also provides for citizen monitoring at all levels of planning, procurement, and implementation of public contracts.

The Democratic Republic of Congo has similarly enacted legislation aimed at enhancing transparency and responsible resource management. The 2018 Mining Code, an amendment to the 2002 Code, incorporates principles of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), requiring mining and quarrying rights holders to publish monthly reports detailing production, sales, and payments to the treasury. The DRC's Hydrocarbons Code also stipulates that contracts are published in the Official Gazette and on the Ministry of Hydrocarbons' website, and the country is an EITI implementing nation. Crucially, Article 9 of the Law establishing Fundamental Principles of Environmental Protection in the DRC affirms that "Everyone has the right to participate in the decision-making process concerning the environment and the management of natural resources." Recent regulatory updates, such as Decree 25/14 of April 1, 2025, further strengthen monitoring and control mechanisms, promote local content, and require detailed environmental and social impact studies for hydrocarbon activities.

The current discussions between Uganda and the DRC regarding joint oil development in the Albertine Graben appear to fall short of the transparency and participation standards enshrined in their respective national laws and international best practices. Civil society groups explicitly accuse the governments of conducting crucial discussions without meaningful consultation with riverside communities, who are poised to bear the brunt of ecological and social consequences. This directly contravenes Uganda's constitutional guarantees for public participation and environmental rights, as well as the DRC's Law establishing Fundamental Principles of Environmental Protection.

The lack of public disclosure regarding the scope, timelines, and implications of these discussions raises significant accountability concerns. Experience from existing projects, such as the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), demonstrates the critical importance of transparency. The EACOP project has faced widespread criticism for alleged displacement, environmental degradation, and limited community participation, leading to legal challenges in the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) and the UK High Court. These cases highlight the legal risks associated with insufficient transparency, including challenges to project legality, compliance with national and regional laws, and the adequacy of safeguards for affected communities.

Furthermore, international law, while not strictly mandating unitization for shared hydrocarbon reservoirs if cooperation efforts fail, strongly encourages a cooperative approach for economic and political reasons. International human rights law also emphasizes the need for transparency and community engagement, particularly for indigenous peoples, and dictates that benefits from resource extraction should accrue to local communities. The opaque nature of the Uganda-DRC talks risks undermining these international principles, potentially leading to future disputes and investor uncertainty. The DRC's recent efforts to revise its Petroleum Code, partly in response to the failure of previous tenders due to an unattractive tax regime and the inclusion of protected areas, indicate a recognition of the need for more robust and transparent frameworks to attract sustainable investment.

The absence of publicly disclosed Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) and comprehensive resettlement action plans for any proposed joint projects is a glaring omission. Uganda's National Oil and Gas Policy explicitly prioritizes the protection of the environment and biodiversity. Similarly, the DRC's new hydrocarbon regulation requires detailed environmental and social impact studies and rigorous environmental management plans. Without these foundational assessments being conducted transparently and with genuine community input, any agreement risks legal challenges, community resistance, and significant reputational damage for all parties involved. The ongoing legal case filed by Congolese fishing communities before the East African Court of Justice concerning cross-border environmental impacts linked to oil activities further underscores the imperative for proactive and transparent engagement.

Comparative examples from other jurisdictions demonstrate that successful transboundary resource development often relies on robust unitization agreements and joint development zones, which are typically negotiated with significant stakeholder input and public disclosure. The failure to adopt such an approach in the Albertine Graben talks could lead to fragmented oversight, inconsistent environmental standards, and inequitable benefit sharing, ultimately undermining the long-term viability and legitimacy of any joint venture. The concerns raised by civil society are not merely activist rhetoric but reflect concrete legal obligations and practical risks that demand immediate attention from both governments.

The demands by civil society for transparency in the Uganda-DRC oil talks are not merely aspirational but are firmly rooted in existing national legal frameworks and international principles governing extractive industries and human rights. The opaque nature of the ongoing discussions poses significant legal, environmental, and social risks, including potential litigation, community unrest, and long-term damage to fragile ecosystems and livelihoods in the Albertine Graben. The experiences from the EACOP project serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of neglecting transparency and public participation in large-scale resource development.

For legal practitioners advising governments or potential investors in this region, rigorous due diligence is paramount. This includes scrutinizing the adherence to national laws on public participation, environmental impact assessments, and benefit-sharing mechanisms, as well as compliance with international standards such as EITI and human rights principles. Governments must be urged to adopt a transparent, inclusive, and participatory approach, ensuring that all agreements are publicly disclosed, independent ESIAs are conducted, and affected communities provide free, prior, and informed consent. Failure to do so risks not only legal challenges but also significant reputational harm and the erosion of public trust, ultimately jeopardizing the sustainable and equitable development of these critical resources. All stakeholders should watch for further civil society actions, potential legislative reforms in both countries, and the outcomes of ongoing regional and international legal challenges as indicators of the evolving legal landscape for transboundary oil development.