Editorial

Holding Shell Accountable

Published

5 years ago

February 19, 2021

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.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

16 hours ago

September 22, 2025

Uchechukwu Okwum

Nigeria’s Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) has unveiled a gratuitous proposal to increase the salaries of political and public office holders in the country. This plan seeks to fatten the pay packets of the president, vice-president, governors, deputy governors, and members of the National and State Assemblies. At a time when the nation is struggling to steady its economy, the suggestion that political leaders should be rewarded with more money is not only misplaced but insulting to the sensibilities of the ordinary Nigerian.

What makes the proposal even more opprobrious is the dire economic condition under which citizens currently live. The cost of living crisis has worsened, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of workers, and the naira continues to tumble against foreign currencies. The majority of Nigerians are living hand to mouth, with many unable to afford basic foodstuffs, medical care, and education. Against this backdrop, political office holders, who already enjoy obscene allowances, perks, and privileges, should not even contemplate a salary increase.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has stepped in to challenge this development. SERAP has filed a lawsuit against the RMAFC to halt the implementation of this salary increment. This resolute move represents a voice of reason and accountability at a time when public anger against political insensitivity is palpable. The group is rightly insisting that the law must serve as a bulwark against impunity.

According to a statement issued by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the commission has been dragged before the Federal High Court in Abuja. Although a hearing date remains unconfirmed, the momentous step of seeking judicial redress reflects a determination to hold those in power accountable. SERAP has once again positioned itself as a guardian of public interest by challenging an elite-centric policy.

The case, registered as suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1834/2025, specifically asks the court to determine “whether RMAFC’s proposed salary hike for the president, vice-president, governors and their deputies, and lawmakers in Nigeria is not unlawful, unconstitutional and inconsistent with the rule of law.” This formidable question goes to the very heart of democratic governance: can those entrusted with public resources decide their own pay rises without violating the constitution and moral order?

In its pleadings, SERAP argues that the proposed hike runs foul of both the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and the RMAFC Act. By seeking a judicial declaration that such a move is unlawful, unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the rule of law, the group has placed a spotlight on the tension between self-serving leadership and constitutionalism. To trivialise such an issue would be harum-scarum, for the constitution remains the supreme authority guiding governance.

We wholeheartedly commend SERAP for standing firm, while we roundly condemn RMAFC’s selfish proposal. Political office should never be an avenue for financial aggrandisement. Since our leaders often pontificate sacrifice to citizens, urging them to tighten their belts in the face of economic turbulence, the same leaders must embody sacrifice themselves. Anything short of this amounts to double standards and betrayal of trust.

The Nigerian economy is not buoyant enough to shoulder the additional cost of a salary increase for political leaders. Already, lawmakers and executives enjoy allowances that are grossly disproportionate to the national average income. These earnings are sufficient not only for their needs but also their unchecked greed. To even consider further increments under present circumstances is egregious, a slap in the face of ordinary workers whose minimum wage remains grossly insufficient.

Resources earmarked for such frivolities should instead be channelled towards alleviating the suffering of citizens and improving the nation’s productive capacity. According to United Nations statistics, about 62.9 per cent of Nigerians were living in multidimensional poverty in 2021, compared to 53.7 per cent in 2017. Similarly, nearly 30.9 per cent of the population lives below the international poverty line of US$2.15 per day. These figures paint a stark picture: Nigeria is a poor country by all measurable standards, and any extra naira diverted to elite pockets deepens this misery.

Besides, the timing of this proposal could not be more inappropriate. At a period when unemployment is soaring, inflation is crippling households, and insecurity continues to devastate communities, the RMAFC has chosen to pursue elite enrichment. It is widely known that Nigeria’s economy is in a parlous state, and public resources should be conserved and wisely invested. Political leaders must show prudence, not profligacy.

Another critical dimension is the national debt profile. According to the Debt Management Office, Nigeria’s total public debt as of March 2025 stood at a staggering N149.39 trillion. External debt obligations also remain heavy, with about US$43 billion outstanding by September 2024. In such a climate of debt-servicing and borrowing to fund budgets, it is irresponsible for political leaders to even table the idea of inflating their salaries further. Debt repayment, not self-reward, should occupy their minds.

This ignoble proposal is insensitive, unnecessary, and profoundly reckless. It should be discarded without further delay. Public office is a trust, not an entitlement to wealth accumulation. Nigerians deserve leaders who will share in their suffering, lead by example, and prioritise the common good over self-indulgence. Anything less represents betrayal of the social contract and undermines the fragile democracy we are striving to build.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

17 hours ago

September 22, 2025

The Tide

Editorial

Rivers’ Retirees: Matters Arising

Published

2 weeks ago

September 8, 2025

The Tide

The Rivers State Government deserves commendation for the manner in which it conducted the last biometric exercise for pensioners in the state. For the first time in many years, the verification process was not only efficient but also humane, a development that has brought relief to a category of citizens that often bears the brunt of neglect.

Unlike previous verification exercises that left pensioners exhausted and unattended, the latest exercise set a refreshing precedent. Retirees were given proper and sumptuous meals, and in addition, the government paid the sum of N10,000 into their accounts to cushion their transportation costs. Such gestures go a long way in demonstrating that those who had laboured for the state are not forgotten in their twilight years.

The measure was particularly necessary given that some pensioners had to travel long distances to reach their verification centres. For elderly men and women, such journeys come with physical and financial strain. By recognising these realities and easing the burden, the government has shown that pensioners deserve dignity, not disdain.

Beyond this laudable act of consideration, the authorities must reflect on the very structure of pension verification. The era of compelling retirees to be physically present for routine verification should be reconsidered. With digital tools and innovation, the government can adopt systems that capture and confirm data without the stress of physical assembly. This is crucial for pensioners residing in other states or even abroad.

While we acknowledge the importance of verification in cleaning up pension records, we cannot ignore the darker side of the matter. It is regrettable that some allowances continue to be paid to deceased pensioners, with relatives fraudulently collecting the funds. The latest biometrics, thankfully, exposed some of these sharp practices. The exercise, therefore, is not only about order but also about justice.

We urge families of deceased pensioners to be patriotic enough to inform the government of the deaths of their loved ones. It is deeply shameful that in some instances, individuals attempted to impersonate late pensioners during the biometrics. Such behaviour undermines the spirit of honesty and deprives genuine retirees of their due entitlements.

The exercise also revealed another important area of concern: the health of pensioners. It is reassuring to learn that the state government has reportedly promised to take over the medical treatment of some retirees who arrived for the biometrics in critical condition. This is a step in the right direction. Elderly citizens, after years of service, should have access to special health care facilities in the state. Setting aside hospitals or designated centres for the aged is not just desirable but necessary.

While pension payments in Rivers State have remained consistent, attention must now be directed towards gratuities. Senior citizens deserve to receive their retirement benefits without the bureaucratic hitches that have often marred the process. After years of loyal service, nothing is more demoralising than to see retirees languish for want of their gratuities. Every worker, as Scripture reminds us, is worthy of his wage.

Retirement, in any civilised society, should not be reduced to a sentence of suffering. In dealing with pensioners, government must consistently wear a human face. The humane manner displayed during this verification exercise should not be a one-off. It must become the norm in all dealings with retirees. Measures must continually be put in place to ensure that they do not feel abandoned by the state they served.

One welcome innovation has already been introduced. The Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral (Rtd) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, has altered the method of gratuity payment. Pensioners now receive their monies directly into their bank accounts, eliminating the cheque-based system that for years served as fertile ground for corruption. This reform is both pragmatic and forward-looking. Similarly, the implementation of the N32,000 pension harmonisation is also commendable.

Direct payments gratuities ensure transparency and drastically reduce the possibility of diversion of funds. More importantly, they restore confidence in the system and assure pensioners that their entitlements will reach them without interference. In this way, the government has not only safeguarded the process but also upheld the principle of accountability.

Seamless gratuity payment has a ripple effect on the workforce as a whole. When workers are confident that retirement will not plunge them into hardship, the temptation to falsify age in order to remain in service is eliminated. Such reforms, therefore, enhance efficiency, honesty, and productivity in the public service.

In sum, the Rivers State Government has struck a refreshing chord in its handling of pension verification. It has shown empathy, innovation, and accountability. However, the momentum must be sustained, and the focus must shift towards modernising verification methods and prioritising retirees’ welfare in health, gratuity, and dignity.

When retirees are treated with compassion and fairness, the message to those still in service is clear: faithful service to the state will not go unrewarded. The humane verification exercise, though a single event, offers a hopeful glimpse of what governance can look like when people, especially the elderly, are placed at the heart of policy.