Oil about to flow but 2010 evicted Balaalo wait for compensation

As Uganda approaches its first oil production, the economic promise is overshadowed by unresolved land compensation disputes, particularly concerning the Balaalo pastoralists. In 2010, hundreds of Balaalo families were forcibly evicted from their land in Buliisa District to pave the way for oil development, yet many remain uncompensated. This article examines the legal framework governing compulsory land acquisition in Uganda, highlighting the constitutional guarantee of prompt, fair, and adequate compensation, and analyzes how the alleged failure to compensate the Balaalo community represents a significant challenge to property rights and equitable development in the country's burgeoning oil sector. It delves into the statutory provisions and relevant case law, underscoring the practitioner implications of these long-standing grievances.

Uganda stands on the cusp of a transformative era, with commercial oil production anticipated to commence imminently. This milestone, however, is marred by persistent grievances from communities in the oil-rich Albertine Graben, particularly concerning land acquisition and compensation. A stark illustration of this tension is the plight of the Balaalo pastoralists, who were forcibly evicted from their ancestral lands in Buliisa District in December 2010, ostensibly to facilitate oil exploration and development. More than a decade later, many of these families report that they have yet to receive the compensation legally due to them, raising critical questions about property rights and the rule of law in Uganda's extractive industries. [7, 10, 15, 17]

The unresolved claims of the Balaalo community underscore a broader challenge: balancing national development imperatives with the fundamental rights of citizens. As the nation prepares to reap the economic benefits of its oil wealth, the failure to address these historical injustices poses significant legal, social, and reputational risks. This article will delve into the legal framework governing compulsory land acquisition and compensation in Uganda, analyze the implications of the Balaalo case within this context, and discuss the challenges and potential pathways for resolution, offering insights for legal practitioners navigating this complex landscape.

The right to property in Uganda is enshrined in Article 26 of the 1995 Constitution, which stipulates that every person has a right to own property, and no person shall be compulsorily deprived of property except where the acquisition is necessary for public use and is accompanied by "prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation, prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of the property." [3, 11, 25] This constitutional safeguard is foundational to land acquisition processes in Uganda. The primary legislation governing compulsory land acquisition is the Land Acquisition Act, Cap. 226, which outlines procedures for the government to acquire land for public purposes. [13, 25]

However, the application of the Land Acquisition Act has faced constitutional challenges. In the landmark case of *Uganda National Roads Authority Vs. Irumba Asumani & Peter Magelah, Constitutional Appeal No.2 of 2014*, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional Court's decision that Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which allowed for compulsory acquisition of property before payment of compensation, was inconsistent with Article 26(2) of the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional. [4, 16] This ruling reinforced the principle that compensation must precede the taking of possession. Further guidance is provided by the Land Act, Cap. 227, which details land tenure systems and includes provisions for compensation, and the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act, 2013, which specifically addresses compensation for disturbance of rights or damage to surfaces by licensees. [16, 24, 27, 28] The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development has also issued Guidelines for Compensation Assessment under Land Acquisition (GCALA) to standardize valuation practices. [16, 23, 27]

The 2010 evictions in Buliisa, which affected hundreds of Balaalo pastoralists, occurred in a context of escalating land disputes between the pastoralists and indigenous communities, exacerbated by the discovery of oil. [7, 15] While government officials have asserted that these evictions were rooted in efforts to address illegal occupation and pre-existing land disputes, and that some compensation was provided, many affected families vehemently deny receiving any, or adequate, compensation. [7, 15, 17] A High Court judgment in 2013 reportedly described the Balaalo eviction as "unlawful and a gross violation of rights" as provided for in Uganda's constitution and other international instruments. [17]

The ongoing non-compensation of the Balaalo pastoralists in Buliisa presents a significant legal conundrum, directly challenging the constitutional guarantees of property rights in Uganda. Article 26(2) of the Constitution unequivocally demands "prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation, prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of the property." [3, 11, 25] The Supreme Court's decision in *Uganda National Roads Authority Vs. Irumba Asumani & Peter Magelah* solidified this principle, rendering any statutory provision allowing pre-compensation possession unconstitutional. [4, 16] The alleged failure to compensate the Balaalo before or immediately after their 2010 eviction, and the subsequent 2013 High Court ruling deeming the eviction unlawful, suggest a direct contravention of these fundamental constitutional protections. [17]

The government's position, as articulated by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, frames the 2010 evictions as a complex issue rooted in long-standing land disputes and illegal occupation, with claims that some pastoralists were compensated. [7, 15] However, the accounts of uncompensated families, some of whom lost homes and thousands of cattle, paint a different picture, highlighting a disconnect between policy and practice. [15] The Land Act, Cap. 227, and the Guidelines for Compensation Assessment under Land Acquisition (GCALA) aim to ensure fair valuation, but the effectiveness of these mechanisms is undermined when compensation is not paid or is deemed inadequate, or when the process itself is opaque or inaccessible to vulnerable communities. [16, 23, 27]

Furthermore, the issue is compounded by Uganda's complex land tenure system, where customary land ownership, often without formal titles, can lead to disputes and difficulties in verifying rightful beneficiaries for compensation. [14, 26, 32] While the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act, 2013, mandates fair and reasonable compensation for surface rights disturbances, the 2010 evictions predate some of the more rigorous land acquisition frameworks implemented for later oil projects like Tilenga and EACOP. [16, 24, 27, 29] Even for these newer projects, land disputes and challenges to compensation adequacy persist, with some project-affected persons resorting to court action, including international lawsuits against companies like TotalEnergies. [14, 18, 20, 22]

The lack of resolution for the Balaalo community highlights potential gaps in the implementation and enforcement of Uganda's land and petroleum laws. While the government and oil companies often report high rates of compensation agreements for recent projects, the historical grievances from earlier phases of oil development remain a critical unaddressed issue. [14, 18, 30] The assertion by local officials that those who did not claim property by a certain time have no moral authority to do so now, directly contradicts the constitutional right of access to a court of law for any person with an interest in property. [3, 7, 11, 17] This situation creates a precedent where the state's actions, even if later deemed unlawful by a court, can result in long-term deprivation of property without effective remedy, undermining public trust and the legitimacy of oil development.

The protracted struggle of the Balaalo pastoralists for compensation in Buliisa serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of upholding property rights and ensuring equitable processes in large-scale development projects. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the inherent risks associated with land acquisition in Uganda's oil sector, particularly where historical grievances remain unaddressed. It highlights the necessity for rigorous due diligence, not only into current land tenure and compensation frameworks but also into past actions and their lingering legal liabilities. The constitutional mandate for prompt, fair, and adequate compensation, as reinforced by the Supreme Court, remains the bedrock of property rights, and any deviation from this principle creates fertile ground for protracted litigation and reputational damage.

Moving forward, practitioners advising on investments in Uganda's extractive industries must emphasize robust human rights impact assessments, transparent land acquisition protocols, and effective grievance mechanisms that are accessible and responsive to affected communities. The government's commitment to resolving these outstanding issues will be crucial in fostering a stable investment climate and ensuring that the benefits of oil production are shared equitably, rather than being built upon unresolved injustices. The international community and civil society will continue to watch closely how Uganda addresses these legacy issues, as it will significantly shape perceptions of the country's adherence to the rule of law and its capacity for responsible resource governance.