The environmental crisis in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region represents one of the most severe cases of industrial pollution in human history. Since oil’s discovery in 1958, this once-pristine delta ecosystem has endured systematic degradation through oil spills, with conservative estimates indicating between 9 and 13 million barrels of oil released into the environment. Between 2020-2021 alone, the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency documented 822 separate oil spills, releasing 28,003 barrels of oil into sensitive ecosystems.
Nigerian courts have developed an innovative constitutional framework for environmental protection in response to this ongoing environmental catastrophe. This jurisprudential evolution marks a significant departure from traditional common law and statutory remedies, establishing environmental rights as fundamental human rights deserving constitutional protection. Changing environmental rights from mere policy objectives to enforceable constitutional rights represents one of the most significant developments in Nigerian constitutional law.
Constitutional Framework for Environmental Protection
The Nigerian Constitution establishes environmental protection through several interconnected provisions. Section 20 explicitly mandates that “the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria.” Whilst placed within Chapter 2 of the Constitution, this provision has gained increasing significance through judicial interpretation and legislative action.
Traditionally, Section 20’s placement within the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy rendered it non-justiciable under Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution. However, Nigerian courts have developed two significant exceptions to this principle of non-justiciability.
The first exception arises when the National Assembly exercises its powers under Items 60(a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List by enacting laws to “promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles” contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution. When the National Assembly enacts legislation relating to Chapter 2 provisions pursuant to Items 60(a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List, the courts have consistently held these provisions to be enforceable.
The second exception occurs when Chapter 2 provisions are interpreted in conjunction with justiciable provisions of the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights outlined in Chapter 4. In such circumstances, the provisions of Chapter 2 become enforceable.
Beyond Section 20, the Constitution provides additional environmental protection through fundamental rights provisions. Section 33(1)’s right to life and Section 34(1)’s right to human dignity have been interpreted to encompass environmental protection. These provisions within the justiciable Chapter 4 provide direct avenues for environmental rights enforcement.
African Charter Framework
The African Charter operates through a unique dual mechanism in Nigeria, functioning as an international treaty and as domestic legislation through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act. The Supreme Court in Abacha v Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228 established that whilst the African Charter is subject to the Constitution, it holds “a greater vigour and strength” than ordinary domestic statutes.
The Charter provides several environmental rights that complement constitutional protections. Article 4 guarantees the right to life, which the African Commission has interpreted to include protection from life-threatening environmental conditions. Article 16 establishes the right to the best attainable state of physical and mental health, whilst Article 22 recognises the right to economic, social, and cultural development. Most directly, Article 24 guarantees the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to development.
These Charter rights gain additional force through the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, which mandate expansive interpretation of both constitutional and Charter rights. The Rules specifically provide for enforcement of Charter rights alongside constitutional rights, creating a comprehensive framework for environmental protection.
Early Jurisprudential Developments
Initial judicial approaches to environmental rights claims adopted a restrictive interpretation of constitutional provisions. Courts generally treated environmental matters as policy issues rather than justiciable rights, limiting remedies to traditional common law and statutory frameworks. This approach reflected a narrow reading of Section 6(6)(c), treating Chapter 2 provisions, including Section 20’s environmental mandate, as purely aspirational.
However, over time, this restrictive approach began to shift. The Supreme Court established the transition from non-justiciability to enforceability of Chapter 2 rights in the landmark decision of Olafisoye v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2005) 51 WRN 6. Olafisoye was charged with corrupt practices under Section 15(5) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which addresses the fundamental objective of government to abolish corruption. Olafisoye challenged his indictment on the grounds that Section 15(5) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution was non-justiciable. After losing at both the High Court and Court of Appeal, he made a final appeal to the Supreme Court.
Justice Niki Tobi, delivering the lead judgement, first reviewed the history of Chapter 2 rights and referenced the “raison d’être” of the Constitution’s drafters to explain the chapter’s rationale. The Supreme Court Justice stated that Chapter 2 rights were established in the Constitution as aspirational goals with future potential for enforceability. He explained that this was why Section 6(6)(c) provided exceptions to the non-justiciability of Chapter 2.
Also read: The Right to a Safe and Clean Environment with regard to Oil Pollution and Climate Change in Nigeria
Justice Niki Tobi held that whilst corrupt practices established by Section 15(5) are not justiciable at face value, these provisions may become justiciable when read in conjunction with Item 60(a) of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly “to promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles contained in this Constitution.” He stated:
“The non-justiciability of Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution is neither total nor sacrosanct as the subsection provides a leeway by the use of the words ‘except as otherwise provided by the Constitution.’ A community reading of Item 60(a) and Section 15(5) results in quite a different package, a package which no more leaves Chapter 2 a toothless dog which could only bark but cannot bite. In my view, by the joint reading of the two provisions, Chapter 2 becomes clearly and obviously justiciable.”
The Supreme Court dismissed Olafisoye’s objection, with Justice Niki Tobi holding that the indictment fell within the exceptions permitting the National Assembly to legislate the enforcement of Chapter 2 rights. The Olafisoye decision established the doctrine that whilst Chapter 2 (Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy) is generally non-justiciable, it is enforceable within the exceptions permitted by the Constitution.
The Gbemre Decision: A New Direction
The Federal High Court’s decision in Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd & Ors (2005) AHRLR 151 marked a fundamental transformation in Nigerian environmental rights jurisprudence. The case concerned gas flaring activities in the Niger Delta region, with communities alleging violations of both constitutional and Charter rights.
The Court’s groundbreaking decision recognised environmental rights as fundamental human rights for the first time in Nigerian judicial history. In a seminal declaration, the Court held that “the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to life and dignity of human person provided in Sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution… inevitably includes the right to clean poison-free, pollution-free and healthy environment.”
Significantly, the Court found that gas flaring activities violated these constitutional rights, establishing that industrial activities causing environmental harm could constitute fundamental rights violations. The decision also bridged constitutional and Charter protections, demonstrating how these frameworks could work together to protect environmental rights.
COPW: Supreme Court Confirmation
The Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518 cemented the constitutional status of environmental rights. The case arose from an oil pipeline explosion that contaminated waterways, destroyed aquatic life, and threatened community health and livelihoods.
The Supreme Court stated:
“The present action concerns an oil pipeline that burst, allegedly spilling crude oil into waterways, polluting drinking sources and destroying aquatic life, plant life, and fauna, and also endangering the health and lives of the people of the community. In this regard, Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides for the right to life. Any act or omission which threatens the health of the people of the community also threatens their lives and is in breach of the guarantee of the right to life provided by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.”
The Court further stated:
“Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to life whilst Section 20 of the Constitution provides that ‘the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of the country.’ See also: Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which provides ‘All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.’ These provisions show that the Constitution, the legislature and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory, recognise the fundamental rights of the citizenry to a clean and healthy environment to sustain life.”
This judgement significantly expanded the scope of environmental rights within the context of oil pollution damage, particularly linking the right to life and the right to a clean environment.
Impact and Current State of the Law
The COPW decision effectively overruled more restrictive approaches to environmental rights, establishing several crucial principles. First, it confirmed that environmental degradation can violate fundamental rights under both the Constitution and the African Charter. Second, it established that environmental rights are directly enforceable through constitutional claims. Third, it mandated a broad and purposive interpretation of environmental rights to ensure effective protection.
Subsequent courts have consistently followed and built upon COPW’s constitutional framework. Most notable are Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited v. Ajanaku & Anor (2021) LPELR-52566(CA) and Chief Isaac Obor – Ntito Torchi and Others v. Shell Development Company Limited and Others (Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/05/2020). In the latter case, the most recent case, the court awarded unprecedented damages of Eight Hundred Billion Naira against Shell for environmental pollution – the largest such award in Nigerian history. This represents a decisive shift from the old constitutional orthodoxy that considered environmental rights non-justiciable to the current approach treating them as enforceable constitutional rights.
These developments have significant practical implications. Communities affected by environmental degradation now have standing to bring constitutional claims. Courts must consider environmental harm within the framework of fundamental rights violations. The broad interpretative approach mandated by COPW and followed in subsequent cases provides flexibility in recognising various forms of environmental harm as rights violations.
These legal developments for multinational oil companies operating in Nigeria present substantial new risks and obligations. The elevation of environmental rights to constitutional status means that oil companies now face potential liability not just under traditional environmental regulations, but also for fundamental rights violations. This expanded liability framework has several key implications for multinationals:
First, the constitutional framework allows for significantly higher damages awards, as demonstrated by the Eight Hundred Billion Naira judgement against Shell. Unlike statutory environmental fines, there are no preset limits on constitutional damages. Second, the broader standing rules for constitutional claims mean that entire communities, not just directly affected individuals, can bring claims against oil companies. Third, the constitutional nature of these rights means that companies cannot rely on mere compliance with environmental regulations as a complete defence – they must ensure their operations do not infringe on fundamental rights to life and a healthy environment. Finally, the constitutional framework creates enhanced reputational risks for multinationals, as being found liable for human rights violations carries greater stigma than traditional environmental infractions.
