The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Hoima, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | A group of lawyers has petitioned the Judicial Service Commission accusing Justice Jesse Byaruhanga Rugyema of judicial misconduct, incompetence, and bias in one of the Tilenga Oil Land Dispute cases. The petition was initiated by seven human rights lawyers led by Eron Kiiza.
They urge the commission to take necessary disciplinary measures against the judge and prevent him from presiding over cases related to oil in the future. “Prohibit his lordship Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema from handling any matters relating to oil and related compensations in the high court of Uganda at Hoima and take any other appropriate action to reconstruct the shredded credibility of that supposed temple of justice,” the petition reads in part.
The petition stems from a ruling by Justice Byaruhanga on December 8 against 42 landowners who had declined the compensation rates proposed by the government. The compensation was intended to facilitate the relocation of the landlords to pave the way for the development of oil infrastructure under the Tilenga project by TotalEnergies. In his verdict, Justice Byaruhanga ruled that the government represented by the Ministry of Energy and the Attorney General could deposit compensation funds with the court and directed the vacant possession of a 59.674-acre land for petroleum activities under the Tilenga project.
In their petition, the lawyers cite seven grounds on which they believe the justice exhibited misconduct, incompetence, bias, and irregularities. The lawyers argue that the judge did not afford a fair hearing to the respondents. Explaining the matter, Kiiza noted that when the case was filed on December 4, the judge issued a ruling after just four days, disregarding requests by the respondents for additional time to file a defense in the matter.
According to Kiiza, considering that land cases typically take years to be resolved in the same court in Hoima and others across the country, the fact that the matter was disposed of within four days after it was filed represents an unprecedented and record-breaking speed.
“How did the judge expect the respondents, at least those opposed to the suit, especially the 16 whom the government told him rejected compensation to receive, effectively service, reflect on the technical pleadings, retain lawyers file responses argue the matter meaningfully in less than four calendar days when the matter regarded their residences, gardens, livelihoods, property and oil and gas barons…?” the petition adds.
The petitioners further contend that the judge proceeded to hear the record-breaking case with proceedings and evidence from one side, failing to allow sufficient time for replies, contrary evidence, and legal submissions. “…this is a matter of incompetence, evidence bias and a sad reminder that the rule of law in Uganda is in peril and jeopardy as one of its supposed to be custodians stage in Hoima is out to sacrifice it on the altar of suspicious speed to the jubilation of government and oil baron,” reads the petition.
Meanwhile, as the lawyers drag the judge to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the Project Affected Persons, whose land is on the verge of being compulsorily acquired by the government for the construction of the oil pipeline, are appealing the matter, citing unfairness.
Serenios Kamutureki, one of the affected landlords, expresses dissatisfaction with how the case was handled and states that they have chosen to appeal the matter in their pursuit of justice. He highlights that the court did not afford them sufficient time to file a defense, as they received a court summons on December 7. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on December 8.
He adds that the matter was also determined in chambers, where they were not allowed, and all the information they obtained was through one of the lawyers who was inside. Additionally, he notes that although the case had 42 respondents, very few had legal representation, and others failed to reach the court due to the short notice given and challenges related to transport from their homes in Buliisa.
Dicken Kamugisha, the Chief Executive Officer of the Africa Institute for Energy Governance, an NGO that has been advocating for the rights of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) since the discovery of oil in the Hoima region, underscores that land matters cannot reasonably be resolved within a mere four days from filing. Drawing from his experience as a lawyer, he suggests that the respondents should have been afforded a minimum of 15 days to file their responses. Kamugisha also expresses astonishment at the rapid handling of the matter, particularly when contrasting it with other cases filed by the PAPs that have remained dormant in the court system for 4 to 5 years.
Kamugisha also cited that there is an urgency to appeal this matter as soon as possible to ensure that it doesn’t set a bad jurisprudential precedent in law to be used by the government and other individuals to compulsorily acquire other people’s land and properties.
Kiiza also asserts that the ruling is detrimental to the country, not only in terms of the potential jurisprudential ramifications but also in practical terms. He contends that the ruling renders compensation negotiations unnecessary, thereby disenfranchising the citizens.
Article 26(2)(b)(i) of the Constitution prohibits the compulsory taking of possession or acquisition of property except under a law which, inter alia, makes provision for “prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation” before the taking or acquisition of the property.
In 2016, the issue of compulsory land acquisition became contentious as the government aimed to introduce a constitutional amendment to Article 26, which called for the due compensation of individuals before their land or property could be taken, even by the government. However, the proposed amendment ultimately failed.
The court had previously rendered a crucial decision in the case of Uganda National Roads Authority Vs. Irumba Asumani & Peter Magelah (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2014). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court affirmed the inviolability of property rights as enshrined in the Constitution.
The court specifically ruled that the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 226) was unconstitutional as it permitted the compulsory acquisition of property before compensating the owner. Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) appealed to the Supreme Court, contending, among other arguments, that Article 26 was not an absolute right and that, in certain circumstances such as natural disasters, emergencies, or the public interest, the State should be allowed to acquire property compulsorily before compensation.
However, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Constitutional Court, affirming that the Land Acquisition Act was inconsistent with Article 26 of the Constitution and, as a result, deemed unconstitutional.
*********
URN
