Despite all the strict confidentiality, there is still a loophole for those who believe that production sharing agreements should be open to the public.
On August 13, 2020, Judge Lydia Mugambe, a judge of the Civil Division of the High Court in Kampala, Republic of Uganda, ruled in Case No. 232 on a claim by one Samantha Atukanda against Neptune Petroleum for copies of the text of the production sharing agreement.
It is worth noting that the interests of the citizen were represented not only by the law firm Kakuru and Co, but also by a representative of the local prosecutor's office.
The claims were motivated by the fact that the citizen wanted to obtain a permit for subsoil use and conclude a production sharing agreement, and therefore wanted to know on what terms the production sharing agreement was concluded by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development of the Republic of Uganda with the company Neptune Petroleum.
As a basis for the statutory grounds, the applicant referred to Article 50 of the Constitution of Uganda, Subsection 41 of the Judiciary Act and Subsections 3, 4, 7 of the Bill of Rights and Freedoms 2008.
The position of the aforementioned Ministry was that access to oil and gas production was limited by technical safety conditions and a protective legal regime.
The investment agreement between the Ministry and Neptune Petroleum contains confidentiality provisions, as the information in the agreement is commercially sensitive.
Publication of an excerpt from the production sharing agreement could cause significant harm to the parties, and the reservations regarding the technical terms of the agreement itself would have lost interest and advantage for the parties if it were made available to anyone for review.
Lydia Mugambe, having analyzed subsection 73 of the Evidence Act, concluded that the production sharing agreement is a public act and its granting does not violate economic rights and freedoms, security and national interest.
The judge was convinced that confidentiality conditions should not have exceptional circumstances, and therefore the judge ordered the applicant to provide the text of the production sharing agreement.
The global approach to the publication of prodcution sharing agreements still maintains a high standard of confidentiality, and the information that can be made public in the form of an extract must be of public (rather than individual) interest and relate to an environmental aspect.
The practice of maintaining confidentiality of the terms of production sharing agreements in Ukraine is even higher than normal standards.
The degree of disclosure of information is agreed upon with the investor in maximum detail.
Commercially sensitive information is not provided under any circumstances and under any conditions.
On August 13, 2020, Judge Lydia Mugambe, a judge of the Civil Division of the High Court in Kampala, Republic of Uganda, ruled in Case No. 232 on a claim by one Samantha Atukanda against Neptune Petroleum for copies of the text of the production sharing agreement.
It is worth noting that the interests of the citizen were represented not only by the law firm Kakuru and Co, but also by a representative of the local prosecutor's office.
The claims were motivated by the fact that the citizen wanted to obtain a permit for subsoil use and conclude a production sharing agreement, and therefore wanted to know on what terms the production sharing agreement was concluded by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development of the Republic of Uganda with the company Neptune Petroleum.
As a basis for the statutory grounds, the applicant referred to Article 50 of the Constitution of Uganda, Subsection 41 of the Judiciary Act and Subsections 3, 4, 7 of the Bill of Rights and Freedoms 2008.
The position of the aforementioned Ministry was that access to oil and gas production was limited by technical safety conditions and a protective legal regime.
The investment agreement between the Ministry and Neptune Petroleum contains confidentiality provisions, as the information in the agreement is commercially sensitive.
Publication of an excerpt from the production sharing agreement could cause significant harm to the parties, and the reservations regarding the technical terms of the agreement itself would have lost interest and advantage for the parties if it were made available to anyone for review.
Lydia Mugambe, having analyzed subsection 73 of the Evidence Act, concluded that the production sharing agreement is a public act and its granting does not violate economic rights and freedoms, security and national interest.
The judge was convinced that confidentiality conditions should not have exceptional circumstances, and therefore the judge ordered the applicant to provide the text of the production sharing agreement.
The global approach to the publication of prodcution sharing agreements still maintains a high standard of confidentiality, and the information that can be made public in the form of an extract must be of public (rather than individual) interest and relate to an environmental aspect.
The practice of maintaining confidentiality of the terms of production sharing agreements in Ukraine is even higher than normal standards.
The degree of disclosure of information is agreed upon with the investor in maximum detail.
Commercially sensitive information is not provided under any circumstances and under any conditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment