Holding Shell Accountable 

On January 29, 2021, 13 years after four Nigerian farmers and fisherfolks, Chief Fidelis Oguru, Mr
Alali Efanga, Chief Barizaa Dooh and Elder Friday Alfred Akpan, instituted lawsuits in the Netherlands with the support of Milleudefensie, the Hague Court of Appeals found Royal Dutch Shell’s subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC), liable for oil spills in the Niger Delta villages of Oruma and Goi.
The plaintiffs, who depended on farming and fishing for their livelihoods, made three demands from Shell. First, to stop and prevent future oil spills from its pipelines. Second, to clean up the widespread environmental pollution resulting from the oil spills. Third, to take responsibility for the actions of its subsidiary in Nigeria and pay damages as appropriate. It is the first time a Western court has ordered a multinational company to pay damages for environmental harm caused in a non-Western country.
Although Shell disclaimed liability for the actions of its subsidiary, arguing that the oil spills in Goi and Oruma between 2004 and 2005 were caused by third party sabotage, the Court of Appeals held Shell liable for the spills according to Nigerian laws, following Shell’s inability to prove the sabotage beyond any reasonable doubt. The farmers sought the intervention of the Dutch court after several failed attempts to bring Shell to justice in Nigerian courts.
Conversely, the court established that the oil spills in Ikot Ada Udo were outcomes of sabotage but concluded that it needed additional time to decide due to insufficient answers to pertinent questions such as “the extent to which the contamination has spread” and “whether the contamination is still of such a nature that remediation is required.” After a damage assessment procedure, the court would determine and disclose the damages to be paid to the three successful plaintiffs. In the meantime, the court ordered Shell and Shell Nigeria to install adequate leak detection systems in its pipelines at Oruma.
These judgements are very significant and having a strong influence on improving the accountability of transnationally operating businesses for violations of human and environmental rights. This is because it is the first appeals case in Europe that resulted not only in a victory on the merits for the victims but also the first case to hold that a parent company was under a duty of care concerning foreign claimants.
While the lawsuits are illustrative of the plethora of cases on oil spills against multinational companies and their subsidiaries instituted within and outside Nigeria, one of their ground-breaking implications is establishing a “duty of care” on parent companies. Put differently, parties can sue parent companies, located or headquartered in foreign jurisdictions for the actions of their subsidiaries.
Expectedly, the judgement will engender more environmental pollution-related lawsuits both in the countries where the pollution occurs and in relevant foreign headquarters. In the past, farmers and farming communities from the Niger Delta had instituted similar environmental pollution lawsuits against Shell in foreign jurisdictions. For example, the highly publicised Okpabi and Others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and another (2018) EWCA Civ 191 filed by 42,500 representatives of Ogale and Bille communities in the United Kingdom in 2015, has since progressed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court heard the case on June 23, 2020. Only recently it ruled in favour of the two Niger Delta communities which were seeking justice for environmental damage caused by Shell. The court found that the Ogale and Bille communities could bring their legal claims for clean-up and compensation against Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDS) and its Nigerian subsidiary, SPDC. Unlike its Dutch counterpart, the United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal maintained that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case against the United Kingdom Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary.
This is a most welcome landmark ruling. It is the most severe embarrassment that communities have to shop for environmental justice abroad because they cannot find it in Nigeria. There is nothing more depressing than the fact that for over 60 years to date, environmental justice has eluded communities, whose existence is endangered by the continually worsening scourge of oil and gas pollution.
The judgement has not come as an astoundment. The evidence was overwhelming and had refused to dissipate even after 13 years. Some crimes are hard to cloak. Environmental crimes, in particular, are of that sort. It takes witting blindness to pretend not to see, smell or feel. We are happy that Shell has been told the truth, so they must defray the extreme harm they have inflicted on the people and the environment.
It is anticipated that the court’s decision will compel transnational companies to respond swiftly and positively when environmental complaints are made from their host countries. The judgement has set a new standard that will give optimism to ordinary citizens that no matter how powerful a company is, there will always be a day of reckoning. If the judgement has not achieved anything, it will, at least, compel Dutch companies to be held accountable for their comportment abroad.
For Niger Delta inhabitants, they must give their land a lick and a promise and ensure that lost crops and livelihoods are indemnified by the guilty party — Shell. This victory has heralded the advent of a new era in which large multinationals such as Shell can no longer go about their business lawlessly but are accountable for their entire operations, including overseas.
Like the landmark judgement by the Dutch Appeals Court, the UK Supreme Court’s ruling sets an esteemed precedent for holding other multinationals to account and has conveyed a voice to oil-producing communities to speak out and act against injustice. The Supreme Court’s judgment might put an end to a long chapter of nonliability by Shell and other multinationals who commit human rights desecration against host communities.
As the determination and disclosure of damages for the three successful plaintiffs as well as the decision for the pending Dutch cases are awaited, it must be emphasised that no amount awarded can reimburse the plaintiffs and communities for the irreparable intergenerational loss of dignity, lives, livelihoods alongside the obliteration of biodiversity, flora, fauna and piscifauna. Indeed, the cases are poignant reminders of the continuing challenges confronted by the over 30 million victims of environmental injustice in the resource-rich Niger Delta.
With both judgements in the kitty, no corporate body, private or public, should ever think it can commit ecocide in the Niger Delta and not be held accountable. It may take longer, but judgement day will surely come. As late Ken Saro-Wiwa said, perhaps we are witnessing a time when Niger Delta communities may finally get to see Shell in the dock.