Oil About to Flow As 2010 Evicted Balaalo Wait for Compensation

Uganda's impending first oil production is overshadowed by the unresolved grievances of hundreds of Balaalo pastoralists forcibly evicted from their land in Buliisa in 2010. Despite a 2013 High Court judgment declaring their eviction unlawful, these communities remain uncompensated, highlighting a critical conflict between national development aspirations and fundamental land rights. This article examines the legal frameworks governing compulsory land acquisition and compensation in Uganda, including constitutional provisions and relevant statutes, alongside pertinent case law. It analyzes the systemic failures that have left the Balaalo in legal limbo, underscoring the challenges of ensuring prompt, fair, and adequate compensation in large-scale infrastructure projects and the implications for Uganda's human rights record and investment climate.

As Uganda stands on the cusp of becoming an oil-producing nation, the promise of economic transformation is starkly contrasted by the enduring plight of communities at the heart of its oil frontier. In Buliisa District, a region central to the country's oil development, hundreds of Balaalo pastoralists who were forcibly evicted from their land in December 2010 remain uncompensated. This unresolved historical injustice casts a long shadow over the narrative of national progress, raising profound questions about land rights, due process, and equitable development.

The 2010 evictions, carried out by armed forces, were described by a High Court judgment in 2013 as "unlawful and a gross violation of rights." Yet, nearly fifteen years later, these communities are still awaiting justice, excluded from the prosperity now being built on the very land they once occupied and, in many cases, lawfully purchased. This article delves into the legal intricacies surrounding these evictions, examining Uganda's constitutional and statutory provisions for land acquisition and compensation, and critically analyzing their application in the context of the Buliisa oil developments. It argues that the failure to adequately address these grievances represents a significant challenge to the rule of law and sustainable development in Uganda.

Land ownership in Uganda is governed by a multifaceted legal framework, recognizing four primary tenure systems: customary, freehold, leasehold, and Mailo. Customary tenure, prevalent in rural areas like Buliisa, is based on community norms and traditions, and is legally recognized even without formal documentation. The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, in Article 26(1), enshrines the right of every person to own property, either individually or in association with others. Crucially, Article 26(2) stipulates that no person shall be compulsorily deprived of property without prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation, *prior* to the taking of possession or acquisition of the property, and with a right of access to a court of law.

The primary legislation for compulsory land acquisition is the Land Acquisition Act, Cap 226, enacted in 1965. However, this pre-constitutional statute has faced challenges regarding its consistency with the 1995 Constitution, particularly concerning the requirement for prior compensation. Complementing this, the Land Act, Cap 227, outlines the functions of District Land Boards, including compiling and maintaining lists of compensation rates for crops and non-permanent structures. In the context of oil and gas development, the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act, 2013, further provides for fair and reasonable compensation for any destruction of rights or damage to surfaces resulting from licensee activities. Article 244 of the Constitution vests the control of petroleum in its natural condition in the Government on behalf of the Republic of Uganda.

The 2010 evictions of the Balaalo pastoralists in Buliisa represent a stark illustration of the challenges in reconciling national development interests with individual property rights in Uganda. While the government's stated aim was to facilitate oil exploration and development, the manner of eviction and subsequent lack of compensation directly contravened established legal principles. A 2013 High Court judgment, in a case filed by the evicted pastoralists, unequivocally declared their eviction as "unlawful and a gross violation of rights" under the Ugandan Constitution and international instruments, noting that they were violently evicted "without any lawful orders of this or any other court."

Central to the legal challenge is Article 26(2) of the Constitution, which mandates prompt, fair, and *prior* compensation before any compulsory acquisition of property. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of *Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) v. Irumba Asumani & Peter Magelah*, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2014, affirmed this principle, declaring Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, Cap 226, unconstitutional to the extent that it permitted the government to take possession of land before paying compensation. This ruling reinforced the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary dispossession and emphasized that both legal and physical possession must follow, not precede, full compensation. The uncompensated status of the Balaalo, years after their eviction, directly contradicts this fundamental constitutional protection.

The complexity in Buliisa was exacerbated by the nature of land tenure. Buliisa was largely characterized by communal land ownership, and the discovery of oil in 2006 rapidly escalated land values, leading to disputes over the validity of customary land sales. Some local leaders argued that the Balaalo's land acquisitions were invalid because the sellers lacked exclusive title, despite customary land tenure being legally recognized even without formal documentation. This highlights a critical gap in the implementation of land laws, where the nuances of customary ownership are often overlooked or deliberately undermined in the face of large-scale development projects.

Furthermore, the concept of "fair and adequate compensation" has been a recurring point of contention. Judicial decisions, such as *Sheema Cooperative Ranching Society & 31 Ors v. Attorney General* [2013] UGHCLD 21, have established that compensation must be based on the market value of the land at the time of payment. However, affected persons in oil-rich areas frequently report that compensation amounts are inadequate to purchase equivalent replacement land, and delays in payment cause significant hardship. Recent court rulings allowing the government to deposit disputed compensation in court, thereby enabling evictions to proceed, further erode the principle of prior and adequate compensation, effectively shifting the burden and risk onto the dispossessed landowners. This practice, coupled with allegations of pressure and intimidation by officials, raises serious concerns about the protection of property rights in Uganda's rush for oil.

The ongoing plight of the Balaalo pastoralists in Buliisa serves as a potent reminder that the pursuit of national development, particularly in resource-rich sectors, must not come at the expense of fundamental human and property rights. The failure to provide prompt, fair, and adequate compensation, despite clear constitutional mandates and judicial pronouncements, undermines the rule of law and risks fostering deep-seated resentment within affected communities. As Uganda moves towards first oil, the unresolved grievances in Buliisa highlight systemic weaknesses in land governance and the implementation of compulsory acquisition procedures.

For legal practitioners, this situation underscores the critical importance of robust due diligence in land acquisition for large-scale projects, ensuring strict adherence to Article 26 of the Constitution and the principles established in cases like *UNRA v. Irumba Asumani & Peter Magelah*. Lawyers representing affected communities must continue to challenge unlawful evictions and inadequate compensation, leveraging both domestic and international legal avenues. Going forward, there is an urgent need for the Ugandan government to align the Land Acquisition Act, Cap 226, with the 1995 Constitution, and to develop clear, transparent, and enforceable guidelines for land valuation and compensation that genuinely protect the rights and livelihoods of all citizens. The international community and investors also bear a responsibility to ensure that their involvement in Uganda's oil sector does not contribute to, or benefit from, human rights abuses and unaddressed historical injustices.