Environmental litigation in Nigeria has evolved into a powerful though still imperfect tool for promoting environmental justice, corporate accountability, and the protection of communities affected by pollution, resource degradation, and climate risk. Despite the existence of a broad framework of environmental laws and treaties, the practical pursuit of environmental remedies through the courts has been marked by a dynamic interplay of progress, contradictions, and emerging judicial attitudes. From early constitutional gaps to the recent rise of transnational litigation, the Nigerian environmental legal landscape continues to shift, reflecting both the limitations of domestic enforcement and the growing push for justice across borders.
At the heart of Nigeria's environmental legal framework lies a patchwork of constitutional, statutory, and treaty-based obligations. The 1999 Constitution, under Section 20, obligates the state to protect and improve the environment. However, because this provision falls within Chapter II (Directive Principles of State Policy), it is non-justiciable and thus not directly enforceable in court. In response, litigants and public interest lawyers have creatively turned to Sections 33 and 34, guaranteeing the rights to life and dignity to anchor environmental claims, arguing that pollution and environmental degradation pose existential threats to human life and dignity. This strategy has also drawn strength from Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (domesticated into Nigerian law), which guarantees the right to a "general satisfactory environment."
Statutory foundations for environmental litigation include key legislation such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, which requires thorough environmental impact evaluations for projects likely to affect the environment; the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act, which establishes the primary regulatory agency; the Harmful Waste (Special Criminal Provisions) Act, which prohibits the unlawful dumping of hazardous waste; and other sector-specific laws like the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) Act and the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021, both of which impose environmental protection obligations on operators in the oil and gas sector.
The judicial interpretation and enforcement of these laws, however, have been far from consistent. A defining moment in Nigerian environmental litigation came in 2005, with the landmark judgment in Gbemre & Ors v Shell Petroleum Development Corporation & 2 Ors [2005] FHC/B/CS/53/05 (unreported), where the Federal High Court held that gas flaring by Shell in the Niger Delta violated the applicant's rights to life and dignity under Sections 33 and 34 of the Nigerian Constitution and Article 4 of the African Charter. The court affirmed that environmental rights are integral to human rights and ruled that environmental degradation, which threatens the quality of life, constitutes a violation of the right to life. This decision established a vital precedent and marked a turning point in the constitutionalization of environmental protection in Nigeria.
Years later, in 2014, the Court of Appeal adopted a more conservative posture in Opara v. Shell (unreported), refusing to extend constitutional protections to environmental harm. The court held that only direct, personal injury could ground such claims and rejected the broader link between pollution and the right to life. This restrictive approach was echoed again in 2019, in Ajanaku v. Shell (unreported), where the court declined to apply the principles in Gbemre, emphasising strict causation requirements and declining to accept fundamental rights as a basis for environmental claims without compelling personal injury.
Amid these conflicting interpretations, a significant development emerged in 2019, when the Supreme Court gave its decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt.1666) 518. The Supreme Court in this case expanded the doctrine of locus standi, affirming that civil society organisations could bring actions in the public interest, particularly in cases of environmental harm. More importantly, the court made three seminal findings: first, that the right to life under Section 33(1) of the Constitution encompasses environmental protection, as pollution directly endangers human survival; second, that Section 20 of the Constitution though part of the ordinarily non-justiciable Chapter II can become enforceable when read in conjunction with fundamental rights provisions; and third, that Article 24 of the African Charter, which guarantees the right to a satisfactory environment, is directly enforceable in Nigerian courts. These doctrinal pronouncements by the apex court further entrenched the link between environmental integrity and fundamental human rights.
In subsequent years, this rights-based approach was reinforced and refined. In Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited v Ajanaku & Anr [2021] LPELR-52566 (CA), the Court of Appeal made a critical contribution to Nigeria's environmental jurisprudence. While the court overturned the Federal High Court's decision on a narrow procedural point, it nonetheless embraced a progressive and substantive interpretation of environmental rights. Justice Ogbuinya, delivering the lead judgment, stated that a person's right to life under Section 33 of the Constitution could not be fully realised in the absence of access to a clean and hospitable environment, safe water, air, land, forests, and wildlife. Citing COPW v. NNPC, the court emphasised that socio-economic rights and environmental rights are symbiotically linked to the enforcement of the right to life. This powerful judicial articulation acknowledged that the quality of one's environment is inseparable from the quality of one's life, a sentiment that reinforces the legal significance of environmental degradation as a violation of human rights.
This progressive trend was affirmed and taken further in the decision of the Federal High Court in Chief Isaac Obor-Ntito Torchi & Ors v. Shell Petroleum Development Company & Ors (Unreported Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/05/2020). In this historic ruling, the court recognised that claims under Sections 20 and 33 of the Constitution, and Article 24 of the African Charter, are justiciable and actionable in cases of environmental degradation. The court awarded an unprecedented ₦800 billion in damages, the largest environmental compensation ever granted in Nigeria to affected communities for health hazards, economic hardship, and violations of dignity caused by oil pollution. The decision signals a bold recognition by the judiciary of environmental harm as a constitutional wrong and an actionable violation of both national and international human rights standards.
Nevertheless, Nigeria's environmental litigation landscape has not been without its doctrinal setbacks and implementation challenges. While Gbemre, Ajanaku, Torchi, and COPW reflect a growing judicial willingness to enforce environmental rights, other decisions, particularly in earlier years, have reflected a narrower and more technical approach. Some courts have insisted on strict proof of direct personal injury or causation, making it difficult for community-based or public interest litigants to secure relief. The procedural demands of establishing scientific causality in environmental harm cases often exceed the capacity of under-resourced claimants, further complicating access to justice.
Faced with these domestic obstacles, Nigerian communities have increasingly turned to foreign courts in search of accountability. In Okpabi v. Royal Dutch Shell, decided in 2021 by the UK Supreme Court, the court allowed Nigerian claimants to sue Shell's parent company in the United Kingdom. It held that the parent company arguably owed a duty of care to communities harmed by the actions of its Nigerian subsidiary, given the degree of control it exercised over its operations. This case is monumental, not only in expanding the reach of environmental litigation but also in signalling that multinational corporations can be held accountable in their home jurisdictions for environmental harm caused abroad.
Also in 2021, the Dutch case of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) v. Royal Dutch Shell added global momentum to the cause. The Hague District Court ordered Shell to cut its global CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030, finding that the company's activities contributed to climate change and breached its duty of care under Dutch law and international human rights norms. Though not focused exclusively on Nigeria, this ruling has strong implications for the accountability of multinational oil companies operating in vulnerable regions like the Niger Delta.
Despite these legal victories, systemic barriers to environmental justice remain. Restrictive interpretations of standing still appear in some courts, despite COPW's precedent. Regulatory enforcement is weak, with institutions like NESREA, NOSDRA, and NUPRC often underfunded, politically constrained, or lacking independence. There is also a significant enforcement gap: even when judgments are obtained, they are rarely implemented with full force, leaving affected communities without the relief they were promised. The technical complexity of environmental claims, involving expert testimony and scientific data, further compounds the challenges, especially where communities lack access to legal or forensic resources. Litigation costs and judicial delays continue to discourage many meritorious claims.
Nevertheless, a growing movement of judicial activism provides hope. Judges have begun to incorporate international environmental standards, apply purposive interpretations of constitutional rights, and embrace the principle that a clean and healthy environment is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of life and dignity. The 2009 Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules have also liberalised standing and encouraged more public interest litigation.
Going forward, Nigeria must take critical steps to consolidate these gains. Constitutional reform is necessary to elevate the right to a clean and healthy environment to a justiciable status. The establishment of specialised environmental courts or tribunals with technical expertise would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental adjudication. Regulatory agencies must be strengthened legally, institutionally, and financially to implement court orders and monitor environmental standards. Finally, a national framework to support public interest environmental litigation, through legal aid, community legal education, and environmental justice funds, would democratize access to the courts.
In conclusion, environmental litigation in Nigeria has come a long way from the early creative arguments in Gbemre, to the groundbreaking rulings in COPW, Ajanaku, and Torchi, and the transnational successes in Okpabi and Milieudefensie. These decisions highlight the potential of the judiciary to serve as a bulwark against environmental injustice and corporate impunity. Yet, the pathway to consistent, enforceable, and impactful environmental justice requires sustained judicial boldness, institutional reform, and the political will to ensure that environmental rights are no longer theoretical ideals but lived realities for every Nigerian.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
