Authored By: Chinweze Abraham Chinedu
University of Nigeria Nsukka
INTRODUCTION
Global warming, extreme weather, and displacement from the environment are no longer looming threats. They are immediate realities. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2024 was the hottest year in recorded history, with global temperatures more than 1.55°C higher than the pre-industrial mark[1]; its impacts have been catastrophic fires in Canada that scorched 18 million hectares, floods in Libya that killed more than 10,000, and the worst drought in 40 years that hit the Horn of Africa[2].
There is no such thing as climate change with a conscience. It amplifies inequality. Low-income countries, which contribute the least to greenhouse gas emissions, suffer the most from its effects. Against All Odds, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) unequivocally states that Africa contributes less than 4% of global emissions but experiences some of the worst climate-related natural disasters[3]. The rise of sea levels threatens cities like Lagos, Accra, and Abidjan, and desertification is asphyxiating livelihoods in the Sahel[4].
The science is precise. The key culprits behind climate change are human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that only dramatic cuts to emissions will avert global warming from exceeding the 1.5°C threshold, beyond which irreversible levels of damage will be done. The question is not whether action is needed anymore. The more important question is whether governments and corporations will face legal consequences and whether they will be held accountable for their role in hastening climate catastrophe.
Governments make promises. Courts enforce them. Climate change litigation has become one of the most potent tools for holding people accountable for environmental harm. Even before the landmark Urgenda case in the Netherlands, which led the Dutch Supreme Court to rule that the government needed to meet a minimum of 25 percent reductions in emissions to protect human rights, courts worldwide became battlegrounds for climate justice[5].
According to the UNEP, over 2,500 climate-related lawsuits have been filed across 65 countries as of 2023[6]. Sometimes, they seek to hold governments accountable for not achieving emissions-reduction goals. Others have demanded that corporations be held accountable for misleading the public about climate risks. In the United States, ExxonMobil was taken to court for reportedly misleading investors about the financial threats of climate change[7]. In Germany, a Peruvian farmer sued the energy giant RWE over its role in melting glaciers in the Andes[8].
Litigation performs several functions. It mandates compliance with climate pledges, demands transparency from polluters, and ensures redress for harmed communities. It also shapes policy. According to reports, lawsuits increasingly impact academia nationally while shaping international climate policy, where litigation returns as a potent tool and a fundamental pillar of environmental governance.
CHALLENGES IN HOLDING POLLUTERS ACCOUNTABLE IN NIGERIA
LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL BARRIERS
Who has the right to sue? In Nigeria, plaintiffs must demonstrate a direct injury to bring environmental lawsuits[9]. That restrictive approach denies communities the ability to seek justice. In Oronto Douglas v. Shell Petroleum Development Company[10], the Supreme Court struck out the suit on technical grounds that the plaintiff had no locus standi. This doctrine grants polluters immunity from accountability.
Voluminous scientific data is required to demonstrate that pollution caused particular health or environmental harm. To survive, plaintiffs must prove causation with soil samples, air quality reports, and medical studies, which are costly resources .
Oil companies take advantage of this challenge. When communities in Ogoniland sued Shell for pollution, the company counterclaimed that other sources, such as illegal refineries and household waste, might be to blame. Without independent scientific evidence, the burden of proof is impossible to meet.
Environmental cases are very slow-moving. Shell reached a $55 million settlement over the high-profile Bodo oil spill after more than 11 years of litigation[11]. By then, the harm was done. Owing to case backlogs, adjournments, and technical objections, it takes an average of 7–10 years for an environmental matter to be determined in Nigeria.
WEAK ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
On paper, Nigeria’s environmental laws appear robust. The 1999 Constitution (Section 20) obliges the state to protect and enhance the environment. Sustainability reviews are required for projects under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act[12]. The Climate Change Act 2021 provides a framework for emissions reductions. However, these laws are rarely enforced.
Nigeria’s environmental regulators lack enough money, people, or infrastructure to do their jobs. The National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) is the monitoring agency, but it is not expansive. The agency works in only a handful of states and has had trouble enforcing penalties.
In the oil-producing Niger Delta, for example, the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) oversees extractive industries. Gas flaring, officially illegal since 1984, continues. A 2023 report from the World Bank’s annual Global Gas Flaring Tracker Report estimates that Nigeria flared 7.3 billion cubic meters of gas in 2023, making it the seventh country in the world on the list[13]. Regulators acknowledge wrongdoing but seldom exact severe punishment.
Corruption undermines environmental enforcement. Companies avoid penalties through bribery or political connections. According to a report by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP)., oil spills by major companies like Shell and ExxonMobil have primarily gone unpunished. Regulatory authorities often depend on polluters’ self-reported data, opening up rigging opportunities.
CORPORATE INFLUENCE AND RESISTANCE
Nigeria’s economy depends on oil; petroleum exports comprise over 80 percent of government revenue. Multinational corporations, especially Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron, use this dependence to evade accountability. They finance political campaigns, lobby policymakers, and delay regulatory action through litigation.
A Dutch court in 2021 deemed Shell accountable for pollution in the Niger Delta, establishing a precedent for corporate liability[14]. However, such cases fall flat in Nigeria as companies exploit legal loopholes and regulatory inaction.
A revolving door between government and industry undermines regulatory enforcement. Former oil executives often find themselves appointed to powerful government agencies, which creates conflicts of interest. The Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), passed into law in August 2021, allows oil companies unprecedented self-regulation and was seen as a departure from the previous, stricter oversight regime.
It is also where corporate-funded research further warps environmental discourse. Sponsoring studies that downplay pollution impacts creates doubt and delays policy action. Tobacco companies applied similar tactics in the 20th century to deny smoking’s health hazards.
PROSPECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION IN NIGERIA
RISING AWARENESS AND PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
The days when climate change was treated as a distant threat are over. Each day in Nigeria, floods, desertification , and rising temperatures make environmental degradation a fact of life. Lagos was already experiencing an average annual sea-level rise of 3-4 millimeters, putting coastal communities at risk. The Sahara is creeping south, devouring farmland in states like Borno and Yobe. Climate litigation today is when theory becomes a matter of life or death.
Public interest lawsuits have emerged as an important mechanism to attain environmental justice. NGOs, activists, and affected communities have increasingly resorted to the courts to compel governmental and corporate accountability. The case of SERAP v. Federal Government of Nigeria[15] is a good example of this. The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) sued the government over its failure to stop environmental pollution in the Niger Delta. Dismissed on procedural grounds, it indicated a growing willingness to compel authorities to account.
Furthermore, civil society organizations (CSOs) are driving the charge. The Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) has battled multinational corporations over oil spills. The Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) has called on regulators to establish emissions standards. These groups elevate local voices, collect evidence, and fund litigation, which is crucial in a system where lawsuits can take years to work through the system.
You might think it was impossible, but the 2021 Climate Change Act has made this legal. It requires targets to reduce emissions and creates a National Council on Climate Change. With legal recognition, activists can demand judicial action when the government fails to intervene.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS
Traditionally, environmental lawsuits in Nigeria have been slow. The courts have sided with procedural technicalities over substantive justice. However, in recent cases, there have been signs that that has changed.
Despite legal evolutions, the ruling in Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company[16] remains a landmark. The court ruled that gas flaring infringed on Nigerians’ constitutional rights to life and dignity. Shell’s flaring persisted, underscoring enforcement limits, but the decision set a precedent for future cases.
The Supreme Court liberalized the doctrine of standing in environmental matters in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC[17] and other cases, enabling NGOs to sue on behalf of communities impacted by pollution. The ruling eliminated a key procedural barrier and opened the door to additional climate lawsuits.
Nigeria’s judiciary is also looking to international jurisprudence. The Dutch Supreme Court’s ruling that required the Dutch government to limit its emissions (Recall Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands[18] ) has inspired similar claims in Nigerian courtrooms. This notion that courts can be used to force climate action is bolstered by the 2021 German Constitutional Court ruling that weak climate laws are failing the constitutional level.
CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND LIABILITY OF POLLUTERS
Nigeria’s fossil fuel economy has benefitted companies and devastated communities. Oil spills in the Niger Delta have contaminated water sources. Gas flaring has been linked to congenital disabilities and cancer. The tricky part lies in proving liability in court.
In 2021, the UK Supreme Court said in Okpabi v. Royal Dutch Shell[19] that Nigerian claimants could bring a case against Shell in British courts over environmental damage. This ruling paves the way for more transnational litigation, circumventing Nigeria’s sluggish justice system.
Corporate accountability is gathering pace in Nigeria. The Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021 provides tighter penalties for breaching its strict environmental provisions. Section 104 mandates oil companies to clean up sites, thus establishing legal grounds for litigation.
CRS is also no longer limited to fundraisers and donations. Investors demand real climate commitments. Listed companies on the Nigerian exchange must now disclose their environmental impact. Multinationals that do not move to cleaner energy will be at risk of shareholder lawsuits and divestment.
CONCLUSION
Climate litigation will not solve Nigeria’s environmental crisis overnight, but it has introduced a critical tool for change. The courts will decide whether laws are symbolic or substantive. Governments and corporations will determine whether they respond to legal mandates or continue evading responsibility. Furthermore, Nigerians themselves, whether as plaintiffs, activists, or voters, will determine whether polluters remain unchecked or are finally held to account.
Reference(S)
[1] “WMO Confirms 2024 as Warmest Year on Record at about 1.55°C above Pre-Industrial Level” (World Meteorological Organization, January 10, 2025) <https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level> accessed March 18, 2025
[2] “Headlines from a Warming World: Extreme Weather and Climate Breakdown” (Campaign against Climate Change, October 7, 2021) <https://www.campaigncc.org/headlines_from_a_warming_world> accessed March 18, 2025
[3] Environment U, “Responding to Climate Change” (UNEP – UN Environment Programme) <https://www.unep.org/regions/africa/regional-initiatives/responding-climate-change> accessed March 18, 2025
[4] the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, “The Africa Center for Strategic Studies” Africa Center <https://africacenter.org/spotlight/rising-sea-levels-besieging-africas-booming-coastal-cities-lagos-dakar-alexandria-maputo-nile/> accessed March 19, 2025
[5] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006
[6] Michael Burger & Maria Antonia Tigre, Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School & United Nations Environment Programme, 2023).
[7] BBC News, “Exxon Accused of Misleading Investors on Climate Change” (BBC News, October 21, 2019) <https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50132400> accessed March 19, 2025
[8] Alkousaa R, “Peruvian Farmer Takes Germany’s RWE to Court in Landmark Climate Case” Reuters (March 17, 2025) <https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/peruvian-farmer-takes-german-energy-giant-rwe-court-landmark-climate-case-2025-03-16/> accessed March 21, 2025
[9] Chinda v Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited (1974) 2 RSLR p.1
[10] Oronto Douglas v. Shell Petroleum Development Company (1999) 2 NWLR (PT 591) 466
[11] “SPDC Agrees £55 Million Settlement with Bodo Community” (Shell) <https://www.shell.com.ng/media/2015-media-releases/spdc-agrees-p55-million-settlement-with-bodo-community.html> accessed March 26, 2025
[12] Environmental Impact Assessment Act 1992, s2
[13] Ibrahim A, “Nigeria Tops as Global Gas Flaring Surges to 5-Year High despite Ban Push” (Businessday NG, June 21, 2024) <https://businessday.ng/energy/article/nigeria-tops-as-global-gas-flaring-surges-to-5-year-high-despite-ban-push/> accessed March 22, 2025
[14] Four Nigerian Farmers and Stichting Milieudefensie v Shell ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2021:132
[15] The Registered Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights & Accountability Project (SERAP) v. President of the Federar Republic of Nigeria & Ors, Ruling, Suit No: ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09 and RUL. No: ECW/CCJ/APP/07/10 (ECOWAS, Dec. 10, 2010)
[16] Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company and Ors (2005) AHRLR 151 (NgHC 2005)
[17] Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) Vs NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR (PT. 1666) 518
[18] Supra
[19] Okpabi and ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and anor UKSC/2018/0068
