CLIMATE LITIGATION IN NIGERIA: CAN CITIZENS HOLD THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE

Abstract

Climate change represents one of the most pressing challenges of the twenty-first century. Its effects are being acutely felt in Nigeria through desertification in the north, rising sea levels in the coastal regions, and recurrent flooding in the middle belt and urban areas. In response to these realities, climate litigation has emerged globally as a tool for holding governments and corporations accountable for climate inaction. This article examines the prospects and challenges of climate litigation in Nigeria, particularly whether citizens can effectively hold the government accountable for failing to meet climate obligations. Relying on constitutional provisions, statutory enactments, case law, and international instruments, the article argues that while Nigeria possesses some legal and institutional frameworks that can enable climate litigation, there are significant barriers, including the non-justiciability of environmental rights, institutional weaknesses, and political interference. Comparative perspectives from other jurisdictions provide useful lessons. The article concludes with recommendations for reform to enhance the role of climate litigation as a vehicle for environmental accountability in Nigeria.

Introduction

In recent decades, climate change has transformed from a distant scientific prediction into a lived reality that significantly shapes economic, political, and social life in Nigeria. The country has witnessed recurring natural disasters such as the devastating floods of 2022, which displaced more than 1.4 million people, destroyed farmlands, and intensified food insecurity. In the northern regions, desertification continues to expand, shrinking arable land and fueling violent conflicts between farmers and herders. In the Niger Delta, decades of oil exploration have not only contributed to greenhouse gas emissions but also unleashed environmental degradation that undermines the livelihoods of host communities.

Globally, citizens and non-governmental organizations have turned to the judiciary to compel governments to act on climate change. Notable among these is the Dutch Supreme Court’s decision in Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, where the government was ordered to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with its human rights obligations.² Similar developments have occurred in South Africa and Pakistan, where courts have enforced constitutional and statutory duties of environmental protection.

Against this background, a pertinent question arises: can Nigerian citizens hold their government accountable through climate litigation? While the Nigerian Constitution recognizes environmental protection as a state objective, its placement within the non-justiciable provisions of Chapter II raises concerns about enforceability. At the same time, judicial activism and reliance on fundamental rights have created some room for maneuver. This article explores these tensions, analyzing the legal framework, judicial responses, critical challenges, and recent developments in climate litigation in Nigeria.

Research Methodology

This article adopts a doctrinal research methodology. Primary sources include the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), statutes such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and international treaties like the Paris Agreement. Judicial decisions from Nigerian courts, the ECOWAS Court of Justice, and comparative jurisdictions form another core source. Secondary sources comprise scholarly writings, NGO reports, and news publications. The approach is both analytical and comparative, aiming to situate Nigerian developments within global trends in climate litigation.

Legal Framework for Climate Litigation in Nigeria

The Nigerian legal framework for environmental and climate protection is a patchwork of constitutional directives, statutory enactments, and international obligations. Section 20 of the 1999 Constitution directs the state to “protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria.”³ However, this provision falls within Chapter II on Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, which is expressly non-justiciable under section 6(6)(c). This structural weakness has historically limited citizens’ ability to directly enforce environmental obligations against the government.

Nevertheless, Nigerian courts have creatively circumvented this hurdle by interpreting fundamental rights expansively. Section 33 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life, while section 34 ensures the right to dignity of the human person. Courts have linked environmental degradation with violations of these rights, thereby providing a legal basis for environmental litigation.

Statutorily, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act 1992 requires prior evaluation of the environmental consequences of major projects. The National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act 2007 established NESREA, empowered to enforce environmental laws and standards. In addition, sector-specific legislation such as the Petroleum Act regulates activities in extractive industries.

Internationally, Nigeria is a party to several climate and environmental treaties, including the Paris Agreement 2015 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The latter, domesticated into Nigerian law, recognizes the right to a satisfactory environment favorable to development. These instruments potentially expand the scope for climate litigation by grounding claims in international obligations.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

Judicial interpretation has played a crucial role in shaping the contours of environmental and climate litigation in Nigeria. In Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company, the Federal High Court held that gas flaring violated the applicants’ constitutional rights to life and dignity. This landmark case connected environmental harm with fundamental human rights, creating a jurisprudential pathway for environmental claims.

In Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v. Federal Republic of Nigeria and Anor, the ECOWAS Court of Justice held that the Nigerian government failed to regulate multinational oil companies adequately, thereby violating citizens’ environmental rights. Although decisions of the ECOWAS Court face challenges in domestic enforcement, the judgment underscores the international dimension of environmental accountability.

A significant breakthrough occurred in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), where the Supreme Court broadened the concept of locus standi in environmental cases. The Court recognized the standing of a non-governmental organization to sue on behalf of affected communities, marking a departure from the restrictive approach that had previously curtailed environmental litigation.

These judicial pronouncements reveal a gradual shift towards recognizing environmental rights, though the momentum remains uneven and heavily dependent on judicial activism.

Critical Analysis

Despite these gains, the prospects of robust climate litigation in Nigeria are hindered by several challenges. The first is the non-justiciability of section 20 of the Constitution, which relegates environmental protection to the realm of unenforceable policy. Citizens must rely on creative arguments linking environmental harm to fundamental rights, which may not always succeed depending on judicial disposition.

Second, institutional weaknesses undermine enforcement. Agencies such as NESREA often lack financial and political independence, leading to regulatory capture by powerful economic actors. The petroleum sector, central to Nigeria’s economy, continues to operate under outdated laws that prioritize revenue generation over environmental protection.

Third, procedural barriers such as high litigation costs, delays in court processes, and technical challenges in proving causation discourage citizens from pursuing climate cases. Unlike in some jurisdictions where class actions and contingency fees facilitate environmental litigation, Nigeria’s procedural rules remain restrictive.

Comparatively, jurisdictions like the Netherlands and South Africa have demonstrated the transformative potential of climate litigation. In Urgenda, the Dutch Supreme Court grounded its decision in human rights law, compelling the state to reduce emissions. In Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v. Minister of Environmental Affairs, the South African High Court invalidated a coal-fired power plant’s authorization for failing to consider climate change impacts.¹¹ Nigerian courts have yet to reach this level of boldness.

Recent Developments

A major step forward occurred with the enactment of the Climate Change Act 2021, which provides a framework for achieving net-zero emissions by 2060. The Act establishes the National Council on Climate Change, tasked with coordinating policies across sectors. It also creates obligations for carbon budgeting and climate-resilient planning. While promising on paper, the Act’s effectiveness will depend on robust implementation and the willingness of courts to interpret its provisions as enforceable duties.

Civil society organizations have become increasingly active in climate-related advocacy and litigation. Groups such as SERAP and the Environmental Rights Action have initiated actions to compel government compliance with environmental obligations. Litigation strategies are also evolving to include claims based on Nigeria’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and other international treaties.

Globally, climate finance and litigation trends are likely to shape Nigeria’s experience. With international donors linking funding to accountability, Nigerian courts may face increased pressure to adjudicate climate disputes more decisively.

Suggestions and Way Forward

For climate litigation to become an effective accountability mechanism in Nigeria, several reforms are necessary. First, constitutional reform should elevate environmental rights into Chapter IV of the Constitution, making them enforceable like other fundamental rights. This would remove the uncertainty surrounding section 20 and strengthen the legal basis for climate claims.

Second, institutions such as NESREA should be granted greater independence and resources to monitor compliance. Stronger regulatory enforcement would reduce the need for excessive litigation while providing clearer standards for courts to enforce.

Third, Nigerian courts should embrace liberal approaches to locus standi and procedural flexibility, allowing communities and NGOs to bring climate actions without undue restrictions. Public interest litigation should be recognized as a legitimate tool of environmental governance.

Fourth, judicial officers should receive specialized training in climate science and international environmental law to better appreciate the complexities of climate litigation. A judiciary that is scientifically literate will be more confident in adjudicating climate disputes.

Finally, civil society engagement must be deepened. Legal aid programs, awareness campaigns, and collaboration with international organizations can empower citizens to use litigation as a tool for climate accountability.

Conclusion

Climate litigation offers Nigerian citizens a potential pathway to hold government accountable for climate inaction. While the Constitution, statutes, and international treaties provide some basis for litigation, structural weaknesses, institutional inefficiencies, and political constraints hinder progress. Nevertheless, recent judicial decisions expanding standing, as well as the enactment of the Climate Change Act 2021, suggest a growing recognition of the need for accountability. Comparative experiences demonstrate that courts can play a transformative role in addressing climate change. For Nigeria, the challenge lies in overcoming legal and institutional barriers to ensure that citizens can fully utilize climate litigation as a tool for justice. Without such reforms, climate change will continue to devastate communities unchecked, eroding human rights and undermining sustainable development.

Bibliography

Cases

• Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC, (2019) LPELR-48295(SC).
• Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company, (2005) AHRLR 151 (NgHC).
• Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor, ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12 (2012).
• Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007.
• Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v. Minister of Environmental Affairs, 2017 (2) SA 519 (GP).

Statutes and Constitutions

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended).
• Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Cap E12 LFN 2004.
• National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency Act, 2007.
• Climate Change Act, 2021.
• Petroleum Act, Cap P10 LFN 2004.
• African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9 LFN 2004.

International Instruments

• Paris Agreement, 2015.
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992.

Secondary Sources

• Chinedu Okafor, Environmental Law and Policy in Nigeria (Lagos: Malthouse Press, 2017).
• Nnimmo Bassey, “Oil Politics and Environmental Justice in the Niger Delta,” Journal of African Law 62, no. 1 (2018): 45–62.
• SERAP, Litigating for Environmental Justice in Nigeria: Trends and Challenges (Lagos: SERAP Report, 2020).
• United Nations Environment Programme, Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review (Nairobi: UNEP, 2023).