A Legal Analysis of Uganda's Upstream Petroleum Legislation and its Compatibility with National Climate Change Laws

Uganda stands at a point of apparent contradiction. It is developing a commercial oil industry, through the Tilenga and Kingfisher projects and the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, at the same time as it has committed, through the National Climate Change Act 2021 and the Paris Agreement, to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions. This article analyses Uganda's upstream petroleum legislation and asks whether it is compatible with the country's national climate-change laws. It sets out the international and constitutional foundations of both regimes, examines the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (Special Provisions) Act 2021 and the environmental-assessment regime under the National Environment Act 2019, and sets them against the National Climate Change Act 2021, which gives domestic effect to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. It identifies four points of tension: the expansion of oil production against the mitigation trajectory of Uganda's nationally determined contribution; the absence of any mandatory climate or greenhouse-gas assessment in petroleum licensing; the exclusion of downstream combustion emissions; and the institutional fragmentation and absence of a rule of primacy between the two regimes. Drawing on Ugandan environmental jurisprudence, including Mbabazi v Attorney General, and on the comparative climate litigation of Urgenda and Milieudefensie v Shell, the article argues that the two regimes are not irreconcilable but are insufficiently integrated. It recommends a mandatory climate assessment in petroleum licensing, the alignment of the petroleum framework with the nationally determined contribution, the resolution of the primacy question, and a just-transition strategy.