Is The Right To A Clean Environment A Fundamental Human Rights In Nigeria?

Environmental pollution is often described as an environmental problem. But what happens when the pollution becomes so severe that people can no longer safely drink their water, cultivate their land or live without serious threats to their health and dignity? At that point, the question is no longer only about the environment. It becomes a question of fundamental human rights.

This is at the heart of an important and developing area of Nigerian law: the relationship between environmental rights and fundamental human rights.

Nigeria does not currently have a standalone, expressly worded constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution. Section 20 of the Constitution directs the State to protect and improve the environment, but it is contained in Chapter II, which deals with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. By virtue of Section 6(6)(c), the provisions of Chapter II are generally not enforceable in court as standalone rights.

That, however, does not mean that environmental harm is beyond the scope of fundamental rights protection. Where pollution threatens life, health, dignity or other legally protected interests, environmental degradation can become a fundamental rights issue.

What Does the Nigerian Constitution Say About Environmental Protection?

Section 20 of the Constitution provides that the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard Nigeria’s water, air, land, forest and wildlife.

On its face, this is an important constitutional commitment to environmental protection.

The difficulty is enforceability.

Section 20 is located in Chapter II rather than Chapter IV, which contains the constitutionally enforceable fundamental rights. Section 6(6)(c) further provides that the judicial powers vested in the courts do not extend to questioning whether any act or omission is in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.

This means that a person generally cannot simply approach a court and say: “My right under Section 20 has been violated.”

But that is not the end of the story. The Constitution separately protects rights such as the right to life under Section 33 and the right to dignity of the human person under Section 34. Severe environmental pollution can directly threaten the enjoyment of these rights.

That is where environmental protection begins to intersect with fundamental rights.

How Can Environmental Pollution Become a Human Rights Violation?

Consider a community where oil pollution has contaminated the only available source of drinking water.

The immediate problem is environmental contamination. But the consequences do not stop there.

If people are forced to drink contaminated water, their health and lives may be placed at risk. If pollution destroys their farmland or fishing grounds, their livelihoods may disappear. If toxic emissions expose residents to serious health risks, their ability to live safely and with dignity may be compromised.

In such circumstances, environmental harm can have a direct connection with fundamental rights. 

This is why it is important to understand environmental rights not only as a question of conservation, but also as a question of human dignity, health, livelihood and life itself.

A healthy environment provides many of the basic conditions necessary for human existence. Clean air, safe water and uncontaminated land are not luxuries. They are part of the conditions in which human beings live.

What Did Gbemre v Shell Say About Environmental Rights?

One of the most important Nigerian cases on the relationship between environmental protection and fundamental rights is Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd & Others.

In 2005, Jonah Gbemre, representing himself and the Iwherekan community in Delta State, challenged gas flaring in his community. The applicants argued that the pollution caused by gas flaring affected their health, environment, food and water security and livelihoods.

The Federal High Court in Benin City took a significant approach.

The Court held that the constitutional rights to life and dignity of the human person “inevitably” included the right to a clean, poison-free, pollution-free and healthy environment. It also found that the continued gas flaring complained of violated the applicants’ fundamental rights to life and dignity.

The Court further linked the failure to conduct an environmental impact assessment to the violation of those fundamental rights and ordered measures to stop gas flaring in the affected community.

The importance of Gbemre is difficult to overstate. The Court did not treat environmental protection as something entirely separate from human rights. Instead, it recognised that where environmental degradation threatens life and dignity, the two areas of law can overlap.

But Is the Position Settled?

Not entirely. This is where the Nigerian position becomes more complicated.

The Court of Appeal subsequently took a more restrictive approach in Opara v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd (2015). The case has been understood as rejecting the proposition that oil pollution, by itself, could automatically ground a claim for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

That position has created an important tension in Nigerian environmental jurisprudence.

On one side is Gbemre, which strongly connected environmental harm with the rights to life and dignity.

On the other is Opara, which placed limits on the use of fundamental-rights proceedings in oil pollution claims.

The debate has not simply disappeared. Indeed, a 2025 decision of the High Court of England and Wales in Alame & Others v Shell Plc [2025] EWHC 1539 (KB) had to examine this very tension while considering claims arising from oil pollution in the Niger Delta. The court considered the relationship between Opara and the later Supreme Court decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v NNPC. It ultimately concluded that the specific fundamental rights claims before it were not sustainable under Nigerian law.

The decision is significant because it shows that the question of environmental pollution as a fundamental-rights issue remains legally contested.

What Did Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v NNPC Change?

The Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation is another important development.

The case arose from an oil spill that contaminated the Ineh and Aku streams in Abia State. The Centre for Oil Pollution Watch sought, among other things, restoration and remediation of the polluted environment and alternative water for the affected community.

The central issue before the Supreme Court concerned locus standi, or who has the legal standing to bring an environmental action.

The Supreme Court took a more liberal approach and recognised the importance of allowing public-interest organisations to bring environmental claims. The decision has therefore become an important authority for environmental public-interest litigation in Nigeria.

The case is particularly important because it moved environmental litigation beyond the narrow idea that only a person who can demonstrate a highly specific personal injury should be able to bring a case to court.

That matters in environmental cases because pollution can affect entire communities and ecosystems.

The African Charter Strengthens the Argument

Another important part of the Nigerian legal framework is the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Unlike the Nigerian Constitution, the African Charter expressly recognises the need for environmental protection.

Article 24 provides that all peoples shall have the right to a generally satisfactory environment favourable to their development.

The Charter also protects rights to life, health and dignity.

Because the African Charter has been domesticated into Nigerian law through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, it forms part of Nigerian law.

This creates an important legal bridge.

Even where Section 20 of the Constitution cannot independently be enforced as a fundamental right, the constitutional rights to life and dignity, read alongside the domesticated African Charter, provide a stronger basis for arguing that serious environmental degradation can have human rights consequences.

This was part of the legal reasoning advanced in Gbemre, in which the applicants relied on Articles 4, 16, and 24 of the African Charter, as well as Sections 33 and 34 of the Constitution.

Why Should Environmental Rights Be Treated as Fundamental Human Rights?

The argument is ultimately very simple. Human beings cannot meaningfully enjoy their fundamental rights in a severely degraded environment.

The right to life means little if a community’s water is so contaminated that drinking it creates serious health risks.

The right to dignity becomes difficult to protect where people are forced to live in severely polluted surroundings without access to basic environmental necessities.

The right to health cannot be separated entirely from the conditions in which people live.

This does not mean that every environmental complaint automatically becomes a fundamental-rights claim. The connection must still be established in accordance with the applicable law and facts.

But where environmental harm reaches a level that threatens protected human interests, it becomes difficult to maintain that environmental law and human rights law exist in completely separate worlds.

Environmental Justice Is About People, Not Just Nature

This is why environmental justice should not be reduced to protecting trees, rivers, forests and wildlife.

Those things matter. But they matter partly because people depend on them.

For a farmer, polluted land can mean the loss of a livelihood.

For a fishing community, a contaminated river can mean the loss of an entire way of life.

For a family, polluted water can become a threat to health.

And for future generations, environmental degradation can mean inheriting resources that have already been damaged beyond easy repair.

Environmental protection is therefore closely tied to questions of equality, dignity and justice.

The people who contribute least to environmental degradation can sometimes bear the greatest consequences. This is particularly evident in communities that depend directly on natural resources for their survival.

Nigeria May Be Moving Towards an Express Constitutional Right

The debate may eventually move beyond judicial interpretation.

Bills have been introduced in the National Assembly seeking to expressly recognise a right to a clean, safe and healthy environment within the constitutional framework of fundamental rights.

The National Assembly’s published records from December 2025 list, among others, HB. 2492, a Bill seeking to provide for the right to a clean, safe and healthy environment under the Fundamental Rights chapter and to integrate environmental protection into the right to life and dignity of the human person. The records also list HB. 1409 and SB. 825, which include provisions concerning a right to a healthy and clean environment.

If such constitutional reforms are eventually enacted, they could fundamentally change the legal landscape.

An express constitutional right would remove much of the uncertainty surrounding the relationship between environmental protection and fundamental rights. It would also give individuals and communities a clearer constitutional basis for seeking judicial protection against serious environmental harm.

Is a Clean Environment a Fundamental Human Right in Nigeria?

The most accurate answer is that it is not yet an expressly stated standalone right in Chapter IV of the Constitution, but environmental protection can engage and support the enforcement of fundamental human rights.

The legal position is developing. Section 20 establishes a constitutional commitment to environmental protection, but its placement in Chapter II creates enforceability difficulties. Sections 33 and 34 protect life and dignity, and Nigerian jurisprudence has recognised that serious environmental harm may implicate those rights. The African Charter further provides an express right to a satisfactory environment favourable to development.

At the same time, decisions such as Opara and the 2025 Alame judgment demonstrate that the precise scope of environmental fundamental-rights claims remains contested.

That distinction matters.

It would be legally inaccurate to say that the Nigerian Constitution already contains an unequivocal, standalone fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment.

But it would be equally misleading to treat environmental protection as completely separate from fundamental rights.

Frequently Asked Questions About Environmental Rights in Nigeria

1. Is the right to a clean environment a fundamental human right in Nigeria?

Nigeria does not currently expressly list a standalone right to a clean and healthy environment in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution. However, serious environmental harm may engage constitutionally protected rights such as the right to life and dignity, while Article 24 of the African Charter expressly recognises the right to a satisfactory environment favourable to development.

2. Does Section 20 of the Nigerian Constitution create an enforceable environmental right?

Section 20 directs the State to protect and improve the environment. However, because it is contained in Chapter II, it is generally not directly enforceable as a standalone right because of the constitutional restrictions on the justiciability of Chapter II provisions.

3. Can environmental pollution violate the right to life?

Severe environmental pollution can potentially engage the right to life where the facts establish a sufficiently serious connection between the pollution and threats to life. Gbemre v Shell is an important Nigerian authority demonstrating this approach.

4. Can environmental pollution violate the right to dignity?

It can, depending on the facts and the applicable legal framework. Gbemre recognised a connection between severe environmental harm and the constitutional right to dignity of the human person.

5. Is Nigeria trying to constitutionalise the right to a healthy environment?

Yes. Bills before the National Assembly have sought to expressly recognise a right to a clean, safe and healthy environment and to link environmental protection with the constitutional rights to life and dignity. The National Assembly’s published records in December 2025 included HB. 2492 and other related proposals.

Environmental Protection Is Ultimately About Human Dignity

The debate over environmental rights in Nigeria is, at its core, a debate about what it means to live with dignity.

A person cannot be expected to enjoy the right to life while living beside severely contaminated water. A community cannot meaningfully exercise its rights when pollution destroys the land and resources on which its livelihood depends.

Environmental protection and human rights may be treated as separate areas of law, but in the lived experience of affected communities, they are deeply connected.

Nigeria’s constitutional framework currently leaves an important gap: the environment is protected as a constitutional objective, but the right to a clean and healthy environment is not yet expressly guaranteed as a standalone fundamental right under Chapter IV.

Until that changes, the courts will continue to play an important role in determining when environmental harm crosses the line into a violation of protected human rights.

The broader principle, however, is difficult to ignore: When the environment necessary for human life, health and dignity is destroyed, environmental damage is no longer merely damage to nature. It is damage to people. And where the law protects the rights of those people, environmental justice becomes a human rights question.

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.