Today marked a double-court success for the communities of Nigeria’s Niger Delta, who have long depended on their marine ecosystems for sustenance and income. These communities, burdened by decades of alleged environmental devastation from oil spills and unchecked gas flaring, are finally making strides in their fight for justice. The once-thriving fishing and farming industries in regions like Eket, Esit Eket, and Ibeno have been crippled under the weight of industrial contamination. But now, as the courts move forward on two critical cases, hope for a cleaner and more sustainable future feels within reach.
The 2024 Divestment Case Against the ExxonMobil Subsidiary
In a lawsuit filed by Barr. Christian Tom of Christian Tom and Partners, the communities are challenging ExxonMobil’s Nigerian subsidiary, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited, Seplat Energy plc, and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC). The plaintiffs – local community leaders and the environmental NGO Network and Advancement Program for Poverty and Disaster Risk Reduction (NAPPDRR) – claim that ExxonMobil’s attempt to divest its onshore assets is a calculated effort to evade responsibility for years of environmental destruction.
The legal case, reviewed by Climate Court, outlines how the plaintiffs first petitioned Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited in May 2024 to clean up the contaminated environment—a request that, despite repeated pleas, remains unmet. Now, as ExxonMobil’s divestment advances, the plaintiffs seek urgent judicial intervention to prevent the completion of the sale to Seplat Energy plc, fearing it will only further delay or prevent the cleanup of the environment they so desperately depend on.
The lawsuit seeks a critical court order declaring that the plaintiffs “are entitled to have their aquatic/marine environment contaminated by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited cleaned up and remediated to its pristine state before divestment.” In addition, the communities demand acknowledgement of their “entitlement to the protection of their environment, [and their] means of livelihood from being contaminated, infringed upon, deprived, and/or taken away.” They also seek financial reparations for the immense economic harm inflicted, assessed at 500 billion Naira (304 million USD), alongside a court injunction to halt the divestment until these responsibilities are met.
However, despite community protests and the ongoing legal battle, the NUPRC recently granted approval for ExxonMobil to transfer its $1.28 billion in assets to Seplat Energy, allowing the company to relinquish a 40% stake in oil mining leases and critical infrastructure, such as the Qua Iboe export terminal. In response, Barr. Christian Tom criticised the regulatory body’s decision as a grave failure, telling Climate Court, “The purported approval by the Federal Government is of no consequence over our legal action for redress and regulatory compliance.”
Today, 29 October 2024, court proceedings for this lawsuit went well. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to serve the defendants, and the case has been adjourned to 26 January 2025 for a full hearing.
Pursuing Environmental Remediation Through the Law
In addition to the ongoing case regarding ExxonMobil’s divestment, a second lawsuit was initiated in 2017, concerning environmental remediation related to an alleged massive oil spill from Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited’s facility at the Qua Iboe Terminal (QIT). The spill, which occurred in 2012, devastated the coastline and led to unprecedented economic hardships for local farmers and fishermen.
This case too was addressed in court today. NAPPDRR scored another victory, as the court dismissed a preliminary objection raised by ExxonMobil, and imposed a cost of 100,000 Naira (60 USD) against the company. This ruling allows the case to proceed to a definite hearing on the environmental justice claims in Suit Nos. FHC/UY/CS/156/2017. The case has faced numerous delays due to Mobil filing a series of objections, but today’s decision marks a critical step forward for the vulnerable populations affected by the oil spill.
Fossil Fuel Divestment from the Niger Delta: Leaving Communities and Environmental Damage Behind
The legal action over the ExxonMobil divestment is part of a larger story of divestment by international fossil fuel companies across the region. A similar narrative is taking place with Shell, whose decision to exit Nigeria’s oil and gas sector follows decades of accusations of environmental and social harm. In January 2024, Shell disclosed plans to sell its entire onshore and shallow-water oil operations in Nigeria to the Renaissance consortium, a group of five companies, for an estimated $2.4 billion. However, this asset sale hit a roadblock when Nigeria’s upstream oil regulator intervened, blocking Shell’s deal. In contrast, Exxon Mobil's divestment received the green light.
Groups like Amnesty International Nigeria and SOMO point out that these departures appear to be an effort to shed responsibility for pollution and infrastructure upkeep without addressing the environmental costs. According to SOMO, this is a cycle of profit-driven divestment that is very familiar in the fossil fuel industry. When oil companies find ageing, high-risk assets that may soon become ‘stranded’ (financially unviable), they sell these assets to local companies with fewer resources, offloading the massive environmental and decommissioning burdens onto underfunded and unprepared parties. SOMO states: “This seemingly incoherent position makes perfect business sense if your calculus is based on profit and shareholder value. […] Global misery is not a cost the oil companies or their shareholders have to pay, so obviously, it is not a factor in their calculations”.
The implications of this strategy in the Niger Delta are profound. As the fossil fuel companies exit, they leave behind pipelines, wellheads, and infrastructure that is often exposed, ageing, and prone to leaks, not to mention the previous environmental and social devastation they have (allegedly) caused. Government intervention is needed to prevent companies from escaping accountability and leaving communities to bear the full burden of cleanup costs. In the absence of proper intervention, legal actions such as that brought by NAPPDRR continue to seek justice and accountability.
Kommentit