Opinion
N’Delta And Human Rights Abuse
Vivid images of environmental and political degradation of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria were a terrifyingly common place: surfaces of rivers and streams littered with dead fish; little children dying from the effects of contaminated water and the devastating impact of violent unrest by vast numbers of unemployed, disaffected and disenchanted youth. The apparent insensitivity of the Nigerian government and transnational corporation in the region deserves urgent attention.
The social economic problems in the region are grounded in a fundamental and systemic disregard for human rights and the inequities of resource allocation. If the revenues from natural resources obtained from these regions in Nigeria were properly managed and fairly allocated, the societal dissensions and historically deep resentments might be less profound.
It is no secret that the human rights regime as it relates to corporate responsibilities in Nigeria is somewhat rudimentary, although globalization has provided massive and profitable opportunities to companies and other multi-nationals in this region, the native inhabitants frequently continue to suffer. Investigations of corporate conduct carried out by Amnesty International and Judicial Watch in the Niger Delta region revealed serious violations of human rights, which have included, among others, environmental degradation, forcible displacement, extra-judicial killings and war crimes.
International human rights law principally affects two categories of actors who may be held liable for abuses. First is the states, through the concept of state responsibility.
States are custodians of full range of human rights, whether defined in treaties or customary law. Individual responsibility applies to a far smaller range of abuses, principally characterized by the gravity of their physical or spiritual assault on the individual.
The theory of corporate responsibility for human rights protection is now a seminal part of international law. Building upon the traditional notion whereby international law generally places duties on states and, more recently, individuals, it is pertinent to question how the international legal process might provide for human rights obligations directly on corporations. Although the United States and other developed countries recognise human rights protection due to corporate unethical activities, around the world, countries in Africa, including Nigeria argued that the duty to protect against human rights violations by third parties rests with the state. Yet, the Nigerian government has frequently failed to meet its obligations to respect and protect human rights, while it provides security to the oil industry, because of its importance to the economy.
The Nigerian government and the courts have consistently discouraged the institution of these law suits. This has resulted in institution of these law suits. This has resulted in instituting these actions in the US Federal District Courts under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). For example, in Ken Saro-Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., a suit brought against International Shell Oil defendants in a US court for the detention and execution of several Nigerians, including prominent author, Ken Saro-Wiwa, arising out of disputes over the development of oil resources in Ogoni, Plaintiffs alleged that, Shell instigated, orchestrated, planned and supported the government of Nigeria to torture and execute the claimant’s family members. The federal district court sitting in New York held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. The case was later settled.
The Alien Tort Claims Act gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear claims of aliens for violations of international law. These cases are important evidence of the trend toward corporate accountability.
Establishing legal frameworks for corporate accountability in the Nigerian jurisprudence can be dealt with in two folds. One, Nigeria courts should look to foreign decisions and international law about corporate human rights issues. Secondly, it should undertake a review of the laws affecting the relationship of the host communities.
A legal regime requiring the regulation of corporations, rather than states or individuals, is necessary to address the human rights abuses. The final step should involve the examination of international practice to see whether states, international organizations, and other key participants are, in a sense, ready for such an enterprise.
In reviewing recent trends, one discovers that international law has already effectively recognised duties of corporations. And since we have the same moral and legal framework as the United States, it is good law to adopt foreign laws and court decisions regarding human rights abuse by multi-national corporations.
It can be argued effectively that the ATCA and other human rights laws be adopted by the Nigerian courts pursuant to the common law doctrine of Stare Decisis. Stare Decisis is the principle that precedent decision both nationally and internationally be binding on lower courts, when a point of law has been settled by that decision. Since the issue of corporate culpability of human rights abuse in the Niger Delta region has been settled by the US courts, it is my opinion that the Nigerian courts should not shy away from adopting this principle in its jurisprudence.
The legislatures or courts should help in developing and reviewing existing laws concerning human rights abuses in the Niger Delta for example, a review of laws affecting the relationship between the oil companies and the communities in which they operate, such as the land Use Acts, The Petroleum and Distribution (Anti Sabotage) Act, and the Petroleum Decree and its subsidiary Legislations among others is a sine qua non towards addressing human rights abuses in the Niger Delta. Most importantly, the proposed Petroleum Bill before the National Assembly should address the issue of corporate responsibility and culpability in the Niger Delta region. These Measures if strictly adhered to, would address the problems and scope of corporate abuse of human rights in the Niger Delta.
Anyaruoh practices law in New York City and District of Columbia.
Felix Ebruba Ayanruoh
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo