Lawyers representing more than 13,000 Nigerians have accused Shell Plc of attempting to protect itself from scrutiny over pollution in Nigeria’s oil-producing Niger Delta.
The Bille and Ogale communities are suing Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary SPDC over oil spills. Shell has denied any liability and claimed that most of the spills were caused by illegal third-party interference, such as pipeline sabotage and oil theft.
The case has been ongoing since 2015, and parts of it have already been heard by the UK’s Supreme Court, which ruled in 2021 that there was an arguable case that Shell owed the claimants a duty of care. Now, Shell is asking the High Court to set an initial trial in early 2024 to determine whether parts of the case were brought too late and whether SPDC is liable for oil spills caused by third-party interference.
However, lawyers representing the claimants argue that Shell’s proposal is an attempt to shield itself from scrutiny. They believe that if the application is allowed, a final decision on the lawsuits could be delayed until 2029. “The reality is that the defendants can readily afford for their claimants to run for seven more years but the claimants cannot,” said Richard Hermer, a lawyer representing the claimants.
Shell’s lawyer, James Goldsmith, countered by saying that “the claimants are responsible for the ongoing delays” by failing to provide enough detail about their cases. He added that Shell’s proposal was not an attempt to delay matters or out-resource the claimants.
A Shell spokesperson said in a statement that the company believes “litigation does little to address the real problem in the Niger Delta: oil spills due to theft, illegal refining and sabotage, with which SPDC is constantly faced and which cause the most environmental damage.”
The case highlights the ongoing battle between oil companies and local communities in Nigeria over environmental damage and pollution caused by oil production. It also raises questions about the responsibility of multinational corporations for the actions of their subsidiaries in other countries. As the case continues, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for companies operating in developing countries and the communities affected by their actions.
