Shell has applied for a two-year delay in a pollution claim involving 13,000 Nigerian villagers.
- The Ogale and Bille communities are fighting for compensation and clean-up of oil pollution.
- Shell argues that Nigerian regulators alone can enforce clean-up actions, not the communities.
- The company claims it isn’t liable for oil spills over five years old or resulting theft incidents.
- A High Court hearing on Shell’s application is set for 4th April 2023, raising concerns of justice delayed.
Shell is once again at the centre of a legal battle, seeking to stall proceedings in a case brought by 13,000 Nigerian villagers who have suffered due to severe oil pollution. These villagers, belonging to the Ogale and Bille communities, are demanding compensation and a thorough clean-up of their environment devastated by oil spills. Now, Shell is pushing for a High Court hearing that could potentially set back the villagers’ quest for justice by another two years.
For over seven years, the Ogale and Bille communities have faced significant challenges attempting to bring Shell to court. Their claims are now ready for hearing, with the Ogale register counting 11,317 individual claims. These claims highlight the distress and damage caused by oil spills, which have disrupted the villagers’ lives, impacted their livelihoods, and polluted their essential resources. Shell, however, argues that only the Nigerian government has the authority to compel clean-up operations and maintains that it is not accountable for spills older than five years or those caused by oil theft.
The corporation’s insistence on isolating legal questions from factual testimonies has sparked outrage among claimants. By moving to have legal arguments heard separately and in advance of the villagers’ testimonies, Shell could effectively defer the main trial and the comprehensive examination of the environmental impact suffered by the communities. This approach has been criticised as a strategic manoeuvre to exhaust the villagers’ resolve, prolonging the hazardous conditions under which they live.
Given the findings of the United Nations in 2011, which identified an ‘immediate danger to public health’ in the affected communities, there is an urgent need for resolution. Legal representatives from the Leigh Day team have condemned Shell’s tactics. Matthew Renshaw, an international team partner, commented on Shell’s determination to evade its responsibilities, indicating that the company has chosen to rely on technicalities rather than face the consequences of their environmental footprint.
As the 4th of April hearing approaches, the claimants’ demand for a timely trial remains paramount. With Shell’s application, the risk of another procedural delay looms large, potentially postponing justice further. This delay serves not only to test the villagers’ patience but also to keep them in a state of uncertainty, as they continue to endure the environmental repercussions of oil pollution.
The upcoming High Court decision will determine whether Shell’s delay tactic succeeds, affecting thousands seeking justice.
