- within Environment topic(s)
- in China
- within Environment, Privacy and Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
The history of environmental rights litigation in Nigeria is not a straight line. It is a story of expansion, limitation and renewed debate—of communities walking into courtrooms to demand clean air and water, of judges drawing lines around fundamental rights, and of lawyers testing how far the Constitution can stretch to cover a poisoned environment. At the centre of that story are three important cases: Gbemre v Shell, Opara v Shell and Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v NNPC.
Gbemre: The Rights-Based Breakthrough
In 2005, the Federal High Court delivered its decision in Gbemre v Shell.
The case arose from continuous gas flaring in Iwherekan Community, Delta State. The applicants argued that the practice affected their health, environment, livelihoods and survival.
The Court accepted that the rights to life and dignity included protection against a clean, poison-free and pollution-free environment. It also found that the failure to conduct an environmental impact assessment contributed to the violation of those rights.
Opara: Judicial Restraint
The next major development moved in a different direction. In Opara v Shell, the Court of Appeal rejected the proposition that the environmental pollution complained of could simply be treated as a fundamental-rights issue under sections 33 and 34.
The result was a significant limitation on the broad approach associated with Gbemre.
Centre for Oil Pollution Watch: access to court expands
In 2018, the Supreme Court decided Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v NNPC. The case concerned standing principally.
The Supreme Court ultimately recognised the NGO’s ability to sue. This was an important development for environmental justice.
But What Did COPW Decide About Environmental Rights?
The Supreme Court considered provisions including sections 20 and 33 of the Constitution and Article 24 of the African Charter.
Some legal scholars have argued that the environmental rights reasoning in COPW forms part of the decision’s binding reasoning. Others maintain that the Supreme Court’s environmental rights observations were not necessary to determine the standing issue and therefore should not be treated as overruling Opara.
Alame: The Debate Returns
The tension became particularly visible in the 2025 English High Court judgment in Alame & Others v Shell Plc.
The Court examined the relationship between Opara and COPW. Its conclusion was that COPW had not definitively overturned Opara. Nevertheless, it regarded COPW as an important indication of the Nigerian Supreme Court’s direction of travel, especially concerning state responsibilities for pollution.
Where Does That Leave Environmental Rights?
It leaves Nigeria with an evolving legal landscape. There is a constitutional environmental protection provision in section 20. There are enforceable fundamental rights to life and dignity. There is the African Charter, including Article 24. There is statutory environmental regulation. There are tort claims and statutory compensation mechanisms.
The Next Chapter
The evolution from Gbemre to Opara to COPW demonstrates that Nigerian environmental law is still developing.
The central question is no longer simply whether environmental pollution is harmful. The harder question is what legal consequences follow when environmental harm threatens the rights and wellbeing of communities.
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.
[View Source]