‘Oil is a curse’: villages in Uganda face land ownership uncertainty

The discovery of oil in Uganda, particularly in the Buliisa district, has triggered widespread land ownership uncertainty and disputes, profoundly impacting local communities. This article examines the complex interplay between Uganda's diverse land tenure systems, the state's interest in resource extraction, and the constitutional rights of landowners. It highlights the vulnerability of customary landholders who often lack formal documentation, making them susceptible to land grabbing and inadequate compensation during compulsory acquisition for oil infrastructure. Legal challenges, including a landmark Supreme Court ruling on the timing of compensation, underscore the critical need for robust legal frameworks and transparent processes to protect property rights amidst rapid industrial development.

The promise of oil wealth in Uganda's Albertine Graben has brought with it a complex web of legal and social challenges, none more pressing than the escalating uncertainty surrounding land ownership in affected communities. Villages like Bugana in the Buliisa district, where families have resided on ancestral lands for generations, now face the specter of displacement and the erosion of their property rights. As Moses K. Asaba, a resident, laments, the discovery of oil has, for many, become a "curse" rather than a blessing, attracting land grabbers and fueling protracted disputes.

This situation presents a critical intersection of property law, human rights, and the state's prerogative over natural resources. The rapid pace of oil exploration and infrastructure development, spearheaded by entities like TotalEnergies EP Uganda, has brought into sharp focus the inherent tensions between customary land tenure systems and formal legal frameworks for land acquisition. This article delves into the legal landscape governing land ownership and compulsory acquisition in Uganda, analyzing the statutory provisions, constitutional safeguards, and judicial interpretations that shape the rights and remedies available to affected communities and legal practitioners alike.

Uganda's land tenure system is characterized by its plurality, recognizing four main forms: customary, freehold, mailo, and leasehold. Customary tenure, which is predominant in regions like Buliisa and the wider Albertine Graben, allows for individual, household, and communal ownership governed by community traditions and norms. However, much of this land remains undocumented, rendering customary owners vulnerable to elite capture and land grabbing, especially when land values appreciate due to external interests.

The legal framework for land ownership and acquisition is primarily enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, the Land Act, Cap 227 (as amended), and the Land Acquisition Act, Cap 226. Article 244 of the Constitution vests ownership and control of minerals and petroleum in the Government on behalf of the people. This constitutional provision is operationalized by the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act, 2013, which regulates petroleum activities and grants the state significant powers over land use for oil-related projects. While the Land Act provides for the security of tenure and establishes land administration institutions, the Land Acquisition Act outlines the procedure for compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes. Crucially, Article 26(2) of the Constitution mandates that compulsory acquisition must be for public use and requires "prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation, prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of the property," alongside a right of access to a court of law for any aggrieved party.

The intersection of Uganda's land laws and petroleum legislation has created significant challenges, particularly for customary landowners. While the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act, 2013, provides for fair and reasonable compensation for disturbance of rights or damage to the surface of land due to licensee activities, including for crops, trees, and buildings, the practical implementation often falls short of constitutional requirements. Historically, the Land Acquisition Act, Cap 226, allowed for the taking of possession before compensation, a practice that directly conflicted with Article 26(2) of the Constitution. This inconsistency was decisively addressed by the Supreme Court in *Uganda National Roads Authority Vs. Irumba Asumani & Peter Magelah, Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No.2 of 2014*, which declared the relevant section of the Land Acquisition Act unconstitutional for permitting compulsory acquisition of property before the payment of compensation.

Despite this landmark ruling, challenges persist. Many customary landowners lack formal titles, making it difficult to assert their rights and secure fair compensation. The valuation of land and property for compensation purposes is often contentious, with concerns raised that compensation is sometimes limited to crops and non-permanent structures, rather than reflecting the full market value of the unimproved land, as stipulated by sections 42 and 77 of the Land Act. Furthermore, the process of identifying and compensating affected persons can be fraught with irregularities, leading to prolonged disputes and litigation, some of which have spanned over a decade.

Oil companies, such as TotalEnergies EP Uganda, have reported high rates of land compensation, with claims of 99% completion for certain projects. However, these figures often mask underlying grievances, including resistance to resettlement and ongoing legal battles over the adequacy and timeliness of payments. The issue is further complicated by instances of fraudulent land claims and the cancellation of land titles in oil-rich districts, highlighting systemic weaknesses in land administration. The ongoing legal actions, including a recent lawsuit filed in the UK High Court by Ugandan farmers against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) operator, underscore the international dimension of these disputes and the increasing demand for multinational corporations to adhere to human rights and environmental standards in their overseas operations.

The land ownership uncertainty in Uganda's oil-producing regions presents a formidable challenge for legal practitioners, affected communities, and the government. For attorneys, navigating this landscape requires a deep understanding of Uganda's constitutional guarantees, the intricacies of its land tenure systems, and the specific provisions of the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act, 2013, and the Land Act, Cap 227. Practitioners must be vigilant in ensuring that all land acquisitions strictly adhere to the principle of prompt, fair, and adequate compensation prior to possession, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Moving forward, there is a critical need for enhanced transparency in land valuation and compensation processes, robust community engagement, and proactive dispute resolution mechanisms. Legal professionals advising oil companies must prioritize comprehensive land audits and ensure compliance with both national laws and international best practices, such as the IFC Performance Standards on Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement, to mitigate legal and reputational risks. For communities, continued advocacy and access to legal aid are paramount to safeguarding their ancestral lands and ensuring that the benefits of oil development do not come at the cost of their fundamental property rights and livelihoods. The ongoing judicial scrutiny and international legal actions signal a growing demand for accountability and justice in Uganda's burgeoning oil sector.